Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Russian Federation (Ratification: 1956)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2026, Publication: 114th ILC session (2026)

Written information provided by the Government

International Transport Workers’ Federation allegations

According to article 3.1 of Federal Law No. 272-FZ of 28 December 2012, “On enforcement actions on persons involved in violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms and the rights and freedoms of Russian Federation citizens”, the activities of a foreign or international non-governmental organization that pose a threat to the foundations of the constitutional order of the Russian Federation, the country’s defence capability, or state security, may be deemed undesirable in the Russian Federation.

The activities of a foreign or international non-governmental organization may also be deemed undesirable in the Russian Federation if such an organization provides intermediary services in transactions involving funds and/or other property belonging to a foreign or international non-governmental organization whose activities have been deemed undesirable in the Russian Federation for the purpose of carrying out activities that pose a threat to the foundations of the constitutional order of the Russian Federation, the country’s defence capability or state security.

The decision to designate the activities of a foreign or international organization as undesirable in the Russian Federation is made by the Prosecutor General or his deputies in consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The decision to designate the activities of a foreign or international organization as undesirable in the Russian Federation can be overturned by the Prosecutor General or his deputies in consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Pursuant to a decision to designate an organization as undesirable in the Russian Federation or to overturn such a designation, the Prosecutor General’s Office informs the Ministry of Justice accordingly. Upon receipt of this notification, the Ministry of Justice either includes the foreign or international organization in the List of foreign and international organizations whose activities have been deemed undesirable in the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the List of undesirable organizations), or removes the foreign or international organization from the said List.

According to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation, since 2022, the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) has engaged in promoting a ban on the entry of vessels registered in the Russian Federation, leased by Russian companies, or flying the Russian flag, into the maritime routes of as many countries as possible (following the example of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

At the initiative of the Dockers’ Section (a part of the structure of the ITF), the ITF-affiliated trade unions in foreign ports disrupted the unloading of Russian vessels, thereby violating the rights of Russian seafarers, including members of the ITF. Under the guise of solidarity with Ukrainian transport workers, the ITF is conducting a fundraising campaign to collect donations for Ukraine. Since the beginning of the special military operation and until the designation of ITF as an undesirable organization, over US$500,000 has been transferred to various Kiev-controlled entities. Using media resources, the ITF systematically posts politicized publications in the information space, fostering a negative image of the Russian Federation abroad.

Thus, by its activities, the ITF poses a threat to the constitutional order of the Russian Federation.

By decision of the First Deputy Prosecutor General of 1 September 2023, the activities of the international non-governmental organization “International Transport Workers Federation”, in consultation with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, were designated undesirable in the Russian Federation. On 18 September 2023, by Order No. 1262-p of the Ministry of Justice, the ITF was included in the List of undesirable organizations.

It should be noted that the ITF itself did not appeal the aforementioned decision of the Office of the Prosecutor General in the prescribed manner. It is also noteworthy that the ITF has not provided effective assistance in any of the situations involving Russian seafarers over the past two years. This includes a wide range of violations of the rights of Russian seafarers including: unlawful arrests of seafarers; detention of ships; failure to receive fuel and food; non-payment of wages; refusal to carry out rescue operations and evacuate seafarers from Russian ships in distress, and so on.

Thus, fundamental international norms are violated with respect to Russian seafarers, including the provisions of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS).

The Government treats the international trade union movement with respect. This includes respect for the rights of trade unions to cooperate with the trade unions of other countries, to join international trade unions and other associations and organizations, and to conclude contracts and agreements with them, as stipulated in article 2, clause 5, of Federal Law No. 10-FZ of 12 January 1996, “On Trade Unions, Their Rights and Guarantees of Activity”.

Furthermore, the Government deems it highly inappropriate to interpret actions to ensure the economic and state security of the Russian Federation as a violation of international norms regarding the activities of trade unions.

Freedom of expression. Foreign agents

According to article 29, Chapter 2, “Human and Civil Rights and Freedoms” of the Constitution of the Russian Federation:

• Everyone shall be guaranteed the freedom of ideas and speech.
• The propaganda or agitation instigating social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife shall not be allowed. The propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or linguistic supremacy shall be banned.
• No one may be forced to express his views and convictions or to reject them.
• Everyone shall have the right to freely look for, receive, transmit, produce and distribute information by any legal way. The list of data comprising state secrets shall be determined by a federal law.
• The freedom of mass communication shall be guaranteed. Censorship shall be banned.

The fundamental rights of trade unions are established by Chapter II of Federal Law No. 10-FZ ”On Trade Unions, Their Rights and Guarantees of Activity”.

Legal relations related to the concept of “foreign agent” and the activities of foreign agents are regulated by Federal Law No. 255-FZ of 14 July 2022, “On Control over the Activities of Persons Under Foreign Influence” (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 255-FZ); these legal relations were previously regulated by the aforementioned Federal Law No. 272-FZ “On enforcement actions on persons involved in violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms and the rights and freedoms of the Russian Federation citizens”).

Federal Law No. 255-FZ establishes two criteria for the designation as a foreign agent:

• receiving support and/or being under foreign influence in other forms;
• engaging in political activity, purposefully collecting information on the military and military technical activities of the Russian Federation, disseminating messages and materials intended for the general public, and/or participating in the creation of such messages and materials.

Political activity includes, in particular, activities in the sphere of state-building; protecting the foundations of the constitutional order of the Russian Federation; the socio-economic and national development of the Russian Federation; the activities of public authorities; and the legislative regulation of human and civil rights and freedoms for the purpose of influencing the development and implementation of state policy, the formation of public authorities, their decisions, and the actions of these bodies.

Political activity is carried out in the following forms:

• participation in the organization and holding of public events such as meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches or pickets, or various combinations of these forms, as well as the organization and holding of public debates, discussions and speeches;
• participation in activities aimed at achieving a specific result in elections or referendums; in monitoring the conduct of elections or referendums; in the formation of electoral commissions and referendum commissions; and in the activities of political parties;
• public appeals to public authorities and their officials, as well as other actions influencing the activities of these authorities and individuals, including those aimed at adopting, amending, or repealing laws or other regulatory legal acts;
• dissemination, including through the use of modern information technologies, of opinions on the decisions made by public authorities and the policies they pursue;
• the formation of socio-political views and beliefs, including through conducting public opinion polls and publishing their results or conducting other sociological research;
• the involvement of citizens, including minors, in the activities specified in paragraphs 1–5;
• the financing of the activities specified in paragraphs 1–6.

Thus, a trade union may be designated as a foreign agent if it does not limit itself to interacting with the employer (or employer association) to protect the labour rights and legitimate interests of employees, but instead uses foreign funding to engage in the activities listed above.

By a decision of the Saint Petersburg City Court on 10 January 2018, following a claim filed by the Prosecutor for Saint Petersburg, the interregional trade union, the “Workers’ Association” was dissolved and removed from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. The reasons cited for the court’s decision included the fact that the union had acted as a foreign agent without notifying the competent authority.

Less than six months later, by appellate ruling No. 78-APG18-8 of the Judicial Collegium for Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 22 May 2018, the aforementioned decision was overturned, and a new ruling was issued denying the administrative claim filed by the Prosecutor for Saint Petersburg for the dissolution of the “Workers’ Association” and its removal from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities.

Attention is also drawn to the fact, that more than 30 years ago, the Russian Tripartite Commission for the Regulation of Social and Labour Relations was established, operating on the basis of Federal Law No. 92-FZ of 1 May 1999, “On the Russian Tripartite Commission for the Regulation of Social and Labour Relations.” The Commission is formed on a parity basis by 30 representatives each from the Government of the Russian Federation, all-Russian employers’ associations, and all-Russian trade unions. The Commission’s primary goals are to regulate social and labour relations and harmonize the socio-economic interests of the parties. Regional tripartite commissions for the regulation of social and labour relations have been established in virtually all constituent entities of the Russian Federation for the same purposes.

In accordance with article 35.1, these commissions review all draft legal acts affecting employee interests in the labour sphere. In these forums, trade unions and employers’ associations have the opportunity to express their positions, including disagreements, on decisions elaborated and adopted in the area of social, labour, and related economic relations.

In view of the above, the Government notes that conditions have been created for trade unions to express their views on the state’s socio-economic policies. Trade unions that do not have foreign agent status also have the right to hold meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets.

Regarding the concerns in respect of labelling requirements for products manufactured by foreign agents, it should be noted that this legal requirement applies to all organizations designated as foreign agents, not just trade unions, and is dictated by national security objectives, not by any desire to hinder trade union activities. The same grounds can also be applied in regard to other limitations on activities of foreign agents, in particular, with respect to the holding of meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets.

Regarding the proposal to include trade unions in the category of organizations that cannot be recognized as foreign agents, attention should be paid to article 2 of Federal Law No. 10-FZ “On Trade Unions, Their Rights and Guarantees of Activity”. Under this article, a trade union is a voluntary public association of citizens bound by common production and professional interests related to their activities, created for the purpose of representing and protecting their social and labour rights and interests.

The Government strongly believes that workers have the right to information about the foreign funding of their representatives.

In response to the observation that the legislation on foreign agents with respect to trade unions should be repealed despite the fact that only one trade union is recognized as a foreign agent, the Government would like to inform the Committee that an indispensable prerequisite for the introduction of amendments to the legislation includes clear demonstration of the ineffectiveness of the existing legal regulation model supported by relevant statistical data. No such data is available in the situation in question.

In light of the above, the Government proposes that the Committee take into account arguments related to the need to ensure national security, and also recognize that the legislation is not targeted at trade unions, but rather has a general focus.

Article 2. Right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without distinction whatsoever

The issue in the comment is raised for the first time.

The Constitution and article 2 of the Labour Code enshrine the fundamental principles of legal regulation of labour relations and other directly related matters, in particular, freedom of labour, including the right to work, the freedom to choose or agree on the type of work, the right to manage one’s ability to work, and the right to choose a profession and type of activity.

According to article 15 of the Labour Code, labour relations are those based on an agreement between an employee and an employer regarding the personal performance of a labour function (work in a specific specialty, qualification or position) for remuneration, the employee’s subordination to internal labour regulations, and the employer providing working conditions stipulated by labour legislation, collective bargaining agreements, agreements and the employment contract.

As a general rule, labour relations arise between an employee and an employer on the basis of an employment contract concluded by them based on the voluntary expression of will of both parties. The employment of convicted persons is regulated by the Criminal Executive Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the CEC) and is therefore carried out within the framework of penal, rather than labour, relations.

Therefore, convicted persons cannot be considered employees, as no labour relations arise within the meaning of article 15 of the Labour Code. However, specific provisions of labour law applicable to the employment of convicted persons are contained in articles 103– 108 of the CEC.

For example, according to article 104 of the CEC, the time spent by convicted persons in paid labour is counted toward their total work experience (Part 3); convicted working persons are entitled to annual paid leave: 18 working days for those serving sentences in juvenile correctional colonies; and 12 working days for those serving sentences in other correctional institutions (Part 4).

Furthermore, according to article 105 of the CEC, those sentenced to imprisonment have the right to wages in accordance with labour legislation (Part 1); the wages of convicts who have worked the full monthly work quota and fulfilled the established quota may not be less than the established minimum wage (Part 2).

Based on the above, convicts are not assigned to work at their own discretion, but in accordance with the requirements of criminal executive legislation. Convicts sentenced to imprisonment have a special legal status, determined by the procedure for executing a prison sentence established by criminal executive legislation. Imprisonment is the most severe form of criminal punishment, typically imposed for crimes that pose a significant public danger to the individual, society or the State.

Deprivation of liberty consists of isolating a convicted person from society by sending them to a penal colony, or placing them in a correctional facility, a medical correctional facility, a general, strict, or special regime penal colony, or in prison (article 56 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

In this regard, isolation from society clearly implies a number of objective restrictions for those sentenced to this type of punishment. This concerns the ability to join various associations, including trade unions, as this is significantly hindered by isolation from society and, furthermore, impacts the safety of convicted persons and the functioning of penal institutions. Therefore, convicted persons are unable to exercise trade union rights to hold meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches, pickets or to call strikes.

In this regard, the proposal to extend trade union legislation to prisoners is not supported, and the current legal provisions regarding their labour activities appear sufficient.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities

Under article 1 of Federal Law No. 58-FZ of 27 May 2003, “On the Civil Service System of the Russian Federation”, civil service in the Russian Federation is the professional service activity of citizens of the Russian Federation aimed at ensuring the execution of the powers of the Russian Federation, federal and regional government bodies, other state bodies, individual territories, persons holding government positions, and a number of other positions.

The civil service system includes the State civil service, military service and other types of civil service.

Thus, civil service is a type of activity that implements the functions of the State and its public authorities. As a result, civil servants have a special legal status, determined by the nature of the performance of these functions, distinct from the legal status of employees employed under an employment contract. The scope of rights, obligations, restrictions and prohibitions of civil servants and employees differs significantly.

Legal regulation of the activities of civil servants is carried out by legislation on the civil service of a given type. As a general rule, labour legislation does not apply to these legal relationships, with the exception of a small number of cases where certain relationships (issues) are not regulated by the legislation on the civil service of the relevant type.

One of the most important characteristics of public administration is its continuous nature, which requires the constant performance of essential functions to support the activities of the State and all its institutions. Therefore, the suspension (including short-term) of duties by a civil servant due to a strike is unacceptable.

It should also be noted that in the Russian Federation, individuals performing other socially significant functions, particularly in the fields of education, healthcare, social protection and social services, culture, sports, pension, social and medical insurance, etc., are not considered civil servants, and their work activities are regulated by the labour legislation of the Russian Federation, taking into account industry-specific aspects.

The Government pays great attention to the quality and safety of rail transport. Considering the vast geographic area and climatic conditions, the continuous, uninterrupted functioning of rail transport is of strategic importance.

It should be noted that, in accordance with article 412 of the Labour Code, the list of minimum essential works (services) performed during a strike by employees of organizations (branches, representative offices or other separate structural divisions) and individual entrepreneurs whose activities are related to the safety of people, their health and the vital interests of society in each sector of the economy, is developed and approved by the federal executive body responsible for coordinating and regulating activities in the relevant sector of the economy, in agreement with the relevant all-Russian trade union. If several all-Russian trade unions operate in a sector, the list of minimum essential works or services is approved in agreement with all all-Russian trade unions operating in the sector.

Please note that the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR), which has been raising the issue of strikes by civil servants and railway workers for many years, does not include trade unions representing these categories of workers.

The Ministry of Labour has requested information on the position of the All-Russian Trade Union of Employees of State Institutions and Public Services of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Servants’ Union) and the Russian Trade Union of Railway Workers and Transport Builders (ROSPROFZHEL) on strikes in these sectors.

In its response, the Civil Servants’ Union reports no complaints or appeals regarding the existence of problems related to the statutory prohibition on suspending official duties to resolve an employment dispute, nor the possibility of resolving it through other procedures.

ROSPROFZHEL notes that, in accordance with the obligations of the Industry Agreement on Railway Transport Organizations for 2026–28, as well as previously existing agreements, employee and employer representatives are obligated to take measures to prevent and resolve collective labour disputes in railway transport organizations.

ROSPROFZHEL prioritizes the resolution of labour disputes with employers (or their representatives), if any, within the framework of the long-standing practice of social partnership at all levels established in the railway industry.

The restriction on the right to strike under Part 2 of article 413 of the Labour Code, as well as article 26 of Federal Law No. 17-FZ of 10 January 2023, “On Railway Transport in the Russian Federation” provide for the inadmissibility and illegality of strikes by public rail transport employees whose activities involve train movement, shunting operations and the provision of services to passengers, shippers, and consignees on public rail transport.

In the assessment of ROSPROFZHEL, there are no contradictions between the Federal Law “On Railway Transport in the Russian Federation” and the List of minimum necessary works (services) provided during strikes in organizations (branches and representative offices) of the transport complex, approved by Order No. 197 of the Ministry of Transport of 7 January 2003.

Discussion by the Committee

Chairperson – Continuing with our work on the discussion of individual cases, on the agenda today, we have the case of the Russian Federation on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

For the discussion of this case, we have 25 speakers registered on the list. On this basis, the Officers have decided to reduce the speaking time of delegates speaking in their individual capacity from five to three minutes. I will now invite the Government representative of the Russian Federation, the Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Protection, to take the floor.

Interpretation from Russian: Government representative – The issue of cooperation with the ILO is extremely important for the Government of the Russian Federation. We fully support the mission, goals and approaches of the ILO to achieving social justice through social dialogue. The Russian Federation has ratified a large number of ILO Conventions – 77 Conventions and 2 Protocols, including all 10 fundamental Conventions, which includes this Convention No. 87. We have analysed the observations and the recommendations of the Committee of Experts as regards the application by the Russian Federation of the Convention and the observations on designating the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) as an undesirable organization.

First and foremost, the Government of the Russian Federation has a great deal of respect for the international trade union movement. That includes the rights of trade unions to cooperate with foreign trade unions, to affiliate with international trade unions and other associations and organizations, and to enter into contracts and agreements with them, which is provided for under our legislation. However, the right of a State to protect its constitutional foundations is a fundamental element of sovereignty provided for in international and national law. Furthermore, the provision on non-interference in internal affairs is enshrined in the UN Charter. In accordance with our legislation, if there is a threat to the foundations of constitutional order of the Russian Federation or the defence capabilities of the country or state security, a foreign or international non-governmental organization may be designated as undesirable within the Russian Federation.

According to information from the Prosecutor General’s Office of our country, one of the main areas of work of the ITF since 2022 has been to assist in introducing, by as many countries as possible, on the example of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a ban to the entry into their maritime routes of vessels registered in the Russian Federation or leased by Russian companies or those carrying Russian flags.

Upon the initiative of the ITF Dockers’ Section, trade unions in foreign ports that are part of its structure have not allowed the unloading of Russian vessels, thereby violating the rights of Russian seafarers – trade union members. Under the banner of solidarity with Ukrainian transporters, the ITF is carrying out a campaign to raise and send funds to Ukraine.

Since the beginning of the special military operation, as of the inclusion of the ITF onto the List of undesirable organizations, more than US$500,000 had been sent to Ukraine by a number of organizations under the control of Kyiv. By using media resources, the ITF also systematically publishes politicized publications that damage the image of the Russian Federation abroad.

The ITF did not protect the interests of workers but has engaged in a de facto politicized activity, which is grounds for verification by the Prosecutor General’s Office. Therefore, the ITF presents a threat to constitutional order and the economic and state security of the Russian Federation.

We are drawing attention to the fact that the ITF has not provided effective assistance to Russian seafarers in recent years and this pertains to a wide range of situations violating the rights of Russian seafarers, such as unlawful arrests of seafarers, detaining vessels, inability to receive fuel, food, non-payment of wages, and refusals of rescue and evacuation operations for seafarers on vessels in distress. Thus, fundamental international standards are being violated in relation to Russian seafarers, including the provisions of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974.

I would also like to note that the ITF did not appeal against the decision on being designated as undesirable in the territory of the Russian Federation.

Therefore, the activities of the ITF go beyond their own direct mandate to protect the rights of trade union members and are politicized. In a number of cases, it is done to the detriment of trade union members themselves, when the ITF condones or acquiesces to situations when Russian vessels or vessels under the flag of the Russian Federation are banned from entering ports or from loading and unloading and from replenishing their fuel and food stocks, not to mention the political statements against the actions of our country and the financial support for structures that are under the control of Kyiv. The Government of the Russian Federation is concerned about the fact that the actions for ensuring economic and state security for the Russian Federation are being interpreted as a violation of international trade union standards. The same goes for the comments of the Committee of Experts on designating trade unions as foreign agents.

In the Russian Federation, in order to designate someone as a foreign agent, two features must be established: receiving foreign support or being under foreign influence as well as carrying out political activity, targeted collection of information on the military activities of the Russian Federation, disseminating information and materials intended for an unlimited number of persons, and participating in creating such information. Therefore, a trade union can be designated as a foreign agent if it has foreign financing but does not restrict itself to collaborating with employers or employers’ associations to protect workers’ rights and legal interests.

We have received an observation of the Committee of Experts on the issue of liquidation of a trade union “Workers’ Association” by the Saint Petersburg City Court in 2018. Among the reasons for this judicial decision, carrying the activities of a foreign agent without notifying the competent body was mentioned. However, I would like to draw attention to the fact that less than half a year later, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation overturned that decision on appeal.

I would also like to note that, more than 30 years ago in the Russian Federation, we formed a Russian Tripartite Commission for the regulation of Social and Labour Relations. The Commission is formed on a parity basis with 30 representatives of the Government of the Russian Federation, all-Russian employers’ associations, and all-Russian trade unions.

The main goals of the Commission are to regulate social and labour relations and to coordinate the socio-economic interests of parties. In almost all regions of the Russian Federation, in pursuit of the same goals, we have formed regional tripartite commissions to regulate social and labour relations. These commissions examine all draft labour regulations that affect the interests of workers. Within these forums, trade unions and employers’ associations can express their positions, including their disagreement with any decisions that are being drafted and adopted on social and labour relations. The Government of the Russian Federation creates all conditions to allow trade unions to express their views on the socio-economic policies of the State.

Trade unions that do not have the status of a foreign agent also have the right to carry out meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets.

Regarding the labelling of products that are being produced by foreign agents, we inform that this legislative requirement relates to all foreign agent organizations and not just trade unions and is not intended to hinder the activities of trade unions. This explains the other bans applicable to foreign agents, in particular on conducting meetings, demonstrations and pickets.

On the proposal to include trade unions in the category of organizations that cannot be recognized as foreign agents, we believe that workers have the right to be informed about the foreign financing of their representatives. We propose to consider the arguments concerning the need to ensure state security and also to take into account the fact that legislation is not targeted against trade unions, but it is of a general nature.

With regard to the observations of the Committee of Experts on convicted persons, this is the very first time it has been raised. In this regard, I would like to note that, according to a general rule, labour relations arise between workers and employers on the basis of a labour agreement, which is concluded on a voluntary basis between the two parties. Work done by convicted persons is regulated by the Criminal Executive Code (CEC) of the Russian Federation, and not labour relations legislation. Therefore, the work of convicted persons is not voluntary and is carried out in accordance with the regulations of the CEC; convicted persons thus have a special legal status. The deprivation of liberty is the strictest form of criminal punishment, and it is generally intended for crimes that pose a significant public danger to persons, society or the State. In this regard, the social isolation regime clearly entails a number of objective restrictions for a convicted person punished with deprivation of liberty. This concerns the opportunity to affiliate with associations, including trade unions, because this is of course made more difficult by isolation from society, and it affects the safety of convicted persons and the functioning of the penitentiary system. Thus, a convicted person does not have the opportunity to exercise the rights of trade unions to carry out meetings, demonstrations, marches and pickets or strikes. Similar practice exists in other countries that have ratified the Convention. In this regard, the proposal to extend trade union legislation to detainees is not justified.

Now, I would like to focus on the issue of the regulation of the right to strike. The right to strike was enshrined in the Russian Federation from the very first years of the development of our country in the post-Soviet period. Article 37 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation recognizes the right to individual and collective labour disputes by using means of labour dispute resolution established by the federal law, which include the right to strike. Carrying out the right to strike is regulated by the Labour Code of the Russian Federation. The legislation provides for other mechanisms allowing to resolve labour issues without going on strike. For example, before striking, people need to go through conciliation procedures, notably to submit a collective labour dispute to a conciliation commission with the participation of a mediator or to a labour arbitral tribunal. We have a certain number of restrictions for striking. In particular, strikes are not allowed in certain cases under the law if the strike would threaten the defence of the country and the safety of the State or security of persons, for example, if it would affect the work of organizations that are directly linked to ensuring the safety of the population.

This also concerns the right to strike for civil servants. I would like to note that one of the most important principles of State governance is its uninterrupted nature, which requires constant execution of relevant functions to ensure the functioning of a State and all of its institutions in the interests of society, which means that civil servants are not allowed to not carry out their work during a strike. A number of countries which have ratified the Convention have similar legislation on this issue.

With regard to rail transport, I would like to note that the Government of the Russian Federation pays great attention to the quality and security of rail transport. Bearing in mind the large geographic scope of our country and considering climate particularities, the uninterrupted nature of rail transport is of a strategic nature, and we would also draw attention to the fact that the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR), which has repeatedly raised the issue of holding strikes by civil servants and rail workers, does not include trade unions that unite these categories of workers. I would also like to note that the Government has requested the position of the All-Russian Trade Union of Employees of State Institutions, and the Russian Trade Union of Railway Workers and Transport Builders on the issue of strikes in these areas of activity. We have received information about the absence of infringements of the interests of this category of workers, in accordance with the legislation in force. Such is the position of the above-mentioned trade unions.

To conclude my statement, I would like to note that the Russian Federation will continue to adhere to international labour standards when implementing its state policy.

Employer members – The Employers would like to thank the Government of the Russian Federation for the oral and written information on this case, which we have taken full note of. Today, the Committee examines the implementation of the Convention by the Government of the Russian Federation. The Convention is a fundamental Convention which the Government ratified in 1956. The Committee of Experts has issued 17 observations on the Government’s implementation of this Convention in law and in practice since 1989, the latest being in 2025. Moreover, the Committee of Experts assessed this case as a double-footnoted case noting its seriousness.

The issues that we would like to focus on in this case are as follows.

First, the designation of the ITF and the IndustriALL Global Union as undesirable. The Committee of Experts noted from the official website of the Russian Federation’s Office of the Prosecutor General that, on 5 September 2023, the ITF was declared an undesirable organization and that, on 17 January 2024, the IndustriALL Global Union was declared an undesirable organization by the Prosecutor General. The Committee of Experts also noted observations submitted by the ITF and its affiliate unions alleging that such a designation resulted in an effective prohibition of its activities and serious restrictions on the activities of its affiliates. The Committee of Experts further recalled Article 5 of the Convention, which entitles workers’ and employers’ organizations, federations and confederations to affiliate with international organizations of workers and employers. Affiliation with international organizations implies maintaining contact with those organizations and participating in their activities. On this point, our group asked the Government to provide its comments on these allegations, specifically that the designation as an undesirable organization in this case is in conflict with the Convention.

The second area is on freedom of expression. The Committee of Experts requested the Government to take steps to ensure that trade unions are able to express opinions, including criticism of the Government’s economic and social policies, without risk of dissolution and regretted that no new information was provided on measures taken in this regard. Therefore, the Employers’ group also asks the Government to provide its comments on these allegations.

The third area is on foreign agents. Regarding foreign agents, the Committee of Experts noted that, under the Russian Federation’s law on non-commercial organizations, trade unions receiving funding from foreign sources were required to register as organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent, which entailed additional obligations under articles 24 on inspections and 32 on restrictions regarding programme implementation. The next point was the Russian Federation’s Code of Administrative Offences, imposing penalties for failing to register as a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent or for distributing materials without indicating their origin as from such an organization. The third point was trade unions and their organizations that fall within the scope of the Russian Federation’s Law on Control over the Activities of Persons under Foreign Influence. The fourth point was that the Government indicated that restrictions on holding public events by foreign agents are justified by state security objectives and therefore cannot be regarded as being directed against the freedom of trade unions.

The Committee of Experts for its part recalled that the right of trade unions to hold public meetings and demonstrations is an essential aspect of freedom of association. The Committee of Experts further recalled that legislation which seriously hampers the activities of workers’ and employers’ organizations on the grounds that they receive financial assistance from international organizations to which they are affiliated infringes the principles concerning the right to affiliate with international organizations. The Employers’ group asks the Government to comment on the measures envisaged to ensure that the relevant legislation and regulations are compatible with the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations under the Convention.

The fourth area we are examining is the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee of Experts observed that under article 19(5) of the Russian Federation’s Law on Public Associations, a person deprived of liberty by a court sentence may not found or participate in a public association, a restriction which, according to the Committee of Experts, appears to prevent workers employed under an employment contract in penal institutions from establishing and joining workers’ organizations of their own choosing to promote and defend their occupational interests.

We have noted the Government’s information that this is the first time that this has been brought to their attention and also that this is a matter governed by criminal legislation. But it is our view that, where criminal legislation intersects with labour matters, such legislation does need to conform with the relevant Convention affecting the affairs of workers. In this case, if the rights of workers under the Convention are limited or restricted through operation of criminal legislation, it is right and appropriate for the Committee of Experts to ask of the Government to comment on how such legislation does not infringe or contravene the Convention and how that legislation may be harmonized in order to respect the rights under the Convention.

In this respect, Article 2 of the Convention states that workers and employers without distinction whatsoever shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing without previous authorization. The Employers’ group asks the Government to review its Law on Public Associations so as to ensure that persons who may be deprived of their liberty enjoy the right to establish and join workers’ organizations of their own choosing, consistent with the Convention.

The final point is on the right to strike. We note the Government’s information, including the articulation of the national context and how it interacts with workers’ right to strike. Our group reiterates its position that the Governing Body will have the first opportunity to consider the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in November this year, and, until then, we will maintain our position that we have always kept in this house on this point.

Worker members – We are examining the Russian Federation’s application of the Convention. Freedom of association is a fundamental right. Its exercise enables workers to defend their interests, rights and dignity. According to Article 2 of the Convention, workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, have the right to establish and to join organizations of their own choosing. And this without previous authorization and subject only to the rules of the organization concerned.

Under Article 3, workers’ and employers’ organizations have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration, including their financial matters and activities, and formulate their programmes. It also provides that the public authorities must refrain from any interference which would restrict the exercise of these rights or impede or obstruct its lawful exercise in any way.

Here, the Convention imposes an obligation on States to provide a wide latitude of freedom for workers’ and employers’ organizations regarding the independence of their organizational form, administration, programmes and activities. This also imposes a high level of scrutiny on States when regulating the exercise of these rights.

The Worker members recall that Article 5 of the Convention guarantees in clear terms the right of workers’ organizations to affiliate with international organizations of workers of their own choosing without interference by public authorities. It is a constructive element of freedom of association itself. It includes the right to maintain contact, to participate fully in international activities and to benefit from solidarity across borders, including from financial contributions. Here as well, given the rights and guarantees protected, any measures that directly or indirectly impede, obstruct or penalize such affiliation, administration and activities within the context of international trade union solidarity constitute a profound breach of the Convention’s core guarantees.

The Convention also requires that freedom of association for workers’ and employers’ organizations is exercised in a climate conducive to the exercise of civil liberties, including freedom of expression and association. This includes the right of trade unions to express opinions, including those criticizing the Government’s policies, whether economic, social or other as well as a right to hold public meetings and demonstrations to defend those interests.

Therefore, it is absolutely clear that the burden is on the State to justify any restrictions they impose in the exercise of freedom of association. Under Article 8 of the Convention, the law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair the guarantees provided for in this Convention. The comments of the Committee of Experts focus in particular on two pieces of legislation, the Law on Undesirable Organizations and the Law on Foreign Agents. These Laws are being applied in a manner that violates the Convention. They are also being applied in a climate increasingly hostile to civil society and the exercise of civil liberties.

Let me begin with the Law on Undesirable Organizations. With this Law, any organization can be designated as undesirable under a broad set of reasons. Either its activities pose a threat to the constitutional order, defence capability and/or security of the Russian Federation or they interfere with the electoral process or involve financial dealings with another organization already designated as undesirable. The designation is made by the Prosecutor General or a deputy, in agreement with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. While this decision has profound and harmful consequences, it is designed as a mere administrative decision with no judicial oversight.

An organization designated as undesirable is subject to a complete prohibition on its activities within the territory of the Russian Federation. Existing subdivisions must be closed. The opening of new ones is prohibited. The distribution of informational materials is banned, and restrictions are imposed on banking operations and the establishment of legal entities. Such measures effectively stigmatize international work and render it impossible within the Russian Federation.

It also affects any organization working with them. Once designated, participation in the activities of an undesirable organization is subject to an administrative fine, repeated infringement as well as financing or organizing the activities of such an organization give rise to criminal liability. The Criminal Code determines terms of imprisonment of up to four, five and six years respectively.

As noted in the Committee of Experts’ report, it is under the Law on Undesirable Organizations that the ITF was designated as undesirable in September 2023 on the grounds that the activities of the ITF pose a threat to the constitutional order of the Russian Federation. In January 2024, the IndustriALL Global Union received the same designation.

As a result, eight Russian sectoral trade unions affiliated with the ITF and nine Russian sectoral trade unions affiliated with IndustriALL were compelled to terminate their membership in those global federations. They are thereby being deprived of the services and benefits that such membership provides on the basis of the principles of international trade union solidarity.

In November last year, the authorities carried out an extraordinary inspection of the activities of the Russian Seafarers’ Union, previously an affiliated member of the ITF prior to the latter’s designation as an undesirable organization. During the inspection, documents were requested “concerning affiliation with and in the association of activities within the ITF”. The prosecutors have failed to communicate to the trade unions any findings of the inspections indicating either the presence or absence of violations.

On 9 April, law enforcement officers conducted searches at the offices of the KTR, the Federal Air Traffic Controllers’ Union, and the Russian Seafarers’ Union, seizing documentation and office equipment. The stated basis for the searches was a criminal case concerning a financial dispute over the distribution of trade union dues within the Federal Air Traffic Controllers’ Union, involving a sum of 52,000 roubles. There has been no official explanation why the offices of the KTR and other member organizations should have been searched. However, the nature of the investigative actions taken, the size and numerous media reports indicate that the primary interest of the law enforcement authorities lay in information relating to the international activities of the trade union organizations in the context of the Law on Undesirable Organizations.

The second Law which poses several problems is the Law on Foreign Agents. The criteria for foreign influence have been extended to the widest possible degree. In addition to the receipt of foreign funding, they encompass organizational and other forms of assistance such as instructions, software platforms and training, scientific and technical assistance as well as any other form of influence over the management of an organization, including by means of purchasing or the provision of information platforms. This Law expressly excludes employers’ associations from the category of entities that may be designated as foreign agents. Trade unions are not excluded, making the intention and bias of the Law towards the defenders of human and labour rights plain to see.

The consequences are equally harmful. Persons holding the designation as foreign agents are required to label all materials produced or disseminated by them. They must comply with reporting obligations and disclose their status to employees and counterparts in the course of their activities. This includes disclosure to non-commercial entities and provision of documents upon request. The consequences are very intrusive and significantly restrict access to resources. There are also consequences of third parties disseminating unlabelled information for foreign agents. In addition to fines for breaches, criminal liability is also applied.

As noted by the Committee of Experts, the Laws on Undesirable Organizations and on Foreign Agents restrict the activities of trade unions to certainly create a climate that is harmful and not conducive to the exercise of the rights protected under the Convention. It is a violation of the Convention in law and in practice. The Russian authorities must work with the ILO, and ensure that they take corrective measures in this regard.

Interpretation from Russian: Employer member, Russian Federation – First of all, my thanks go to the Organization for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Russian employers. My colleagues, the representatives of the Government of the Russian Federation, have gone into detail on the situation arising in Russian legislation which saves me having to go into those points on legislation.

What I am going to do is emphasize that the Convention is one of the fundamental Conventions of the ILO, and employers greatly respect its position as a fundamental Convention. We have paid close attention to all of the recommendations from the ILO, in particular the Committee of Experts, and think it is necessary to take measures to take into account the recommendations of the ILO experts, bringing changes into the relevant laws of the Russian Federation. The main area of interest for Russian employers as social partners in the tripartite dialogue in the Russian Federation is to ensure that that dialogue is effective and that representatives of the social partners can fully play the role provided for in the legislation in force in the Russian Federation.

We are very much interested in the trade unions being able to use all of the available legislative provisions relating to trade unions within the Tripartite Commission, including measures to develop international cooperation, cooperate with international federations and other international organizations with a view to carrying out and enjoying their basic rights.

I would particularly like to note that the designation as an undesirable organization and the issue of foreign agents is something that is strictly governed by national legislation. The right to organize and the right to strike have been discussed at length within the ILO and, as has already been said, we have a position on the right to strike as has already been mentioned by our spokesperson.

Freedom of expression is covered by the Russian Constitution and relates to all organizations. Further clarifying the right to express one’s opinion for one type of organization, namely trade unions, is not necessary as it is already covered in general. We are willing to take a constructive approach to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and in light of that we believe it is necessary to avoid the politicization of issues relating to the legislation on social partners and other legislative tools, for example, the Criminal Code and its impact on the Convention and other ILO Conventions. We could also talk about other spheres of law – taxation law, economic legislation – which have a direct impact on the labour market and therefore on the rights of the social partners.

Interpretation from Russian: Worker member, Russian Federation – The workers’ representatives of the Russian Federation would like to thank the Committee of Experts for the comments provided. The Russian trade unions constantly monitor the situation relating to the application of the core Conventions in the area of freedom of associations. Cases of violations are documented and analysed. The aggregated data, combined with further analysis of actions by social partners, judicial decisions, and legislative changes form the basis of the comments that trade union associations submit on the annual report of the Government of the Russian Federation on the implementation of the ratified, primarily fundamental, ILO Conventions.

The Government submits an annual report on the compliance with the Conventions that is considered in the Tripartite Commission, which is the leading body at the federal level. As a rule, the annual report is sent by the Government to the ILO after a face-to-face meeting with the social partners and, after that, associations of employers and workers communicate in writing their comments to the Ministry of Labour, which are generally put in a single package with the report of the Government. With a view to achieving the specific recommendations on freedom of association made by the Governing Body to the ILO in various years, in 2013, the trade unions requested the creation of a working group on the analysis of recommendations of the Governing Body in Cases Nos 2758, 2216 and 2251 and the development of proposals on improving the existing normative framework and application in practice. The working group includes representatives of the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Justice, the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia and the Confederation of Labour of Russia, and also employers’ associations.

This is a practice which is long-standing and has shown to be successful. It allows trade unions to effectively correct the position of the Government on situations relating to the practical application of Conventions. We understand the concern of the Committee of Experts on the legislation in the social sphere. It should be emphasized that the provisions mentioned by the Committee of Experts adopted at the national level amid difficult geopolitical circumstances are not focused on limiting the rights of trade unions. These are provisions which apply generally, affecting the rights and obligations of all entities in this specific area.

The Russian Federation has a Law on Trade Unions adopted in 1996, and it has priority over all other legislation which regulates the activities of societal and non-governmental bodies. The legal system of the Russian Federation has no direct provisions limiting the rights of trade unions and their activities. They can carry out international cooperation, be part of international organizations and enjoy membership in them. Measures referred to by the Committee of Experts are very limited in their scope. The only case mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts is the dissolution of the interregional trade union, the “Workers’ Association”, relating to the criticism of the Government’s economic and social policy (complaint 3315). Ultimately this case was overturned by the Supreme Court, which corrected the decision issued at first instance. No trade unions have been deemed foreign agents even in the last five years of the more stringent provisions of the federal law on monitoring of the activities of individuals and foreign influence being in effect.

The only point which is worth focusing on is the exclusion of workers’ organizations from the list of entities which can be considered foreign agents. This is an exclusion which has not been achieved despite our requests.

Undoubtedly, we are concerned by the events mentioned by the Workers’ representative on the searches carried out this year on the offices of the Russian Seafarers’ Union and the Federal Air Traffic Controllers’ Union. This is an incident which is serious and gives rise to concern in the context of developing social dialogue in the country in the coming years. We believe that it has to be ascribed to an excessive zeal of some unscrupulous officials. However, once again, I would emphasize that, as the Workers’ representative has already said, this incident arose from the officials within the trade union who were concerned about the financial activities of their organization. We are looking closely at the development of the situation, working together with the Russian Federation, and we are willing to continue working with them and all interested parties, including experts of the Office.

With regard to the Law on Undesirable Organizations being applied to the ITF and the IndustriALL Global Union, as decided by the Prosecutor General, from the moment of the adoption of those decisions, the Confederation of Labour of Russia has been making efforts at the national level to change them. The question has been brought before the relevant authorities in our tripartite bodies for discussion, and we are cooperating with the relevant authorities and employers’ organizations.

Our principal position remains unchanged: in full accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal legislation and international obligations of the country in the labour sphere, trade unions and their associations have the right without prior authorization to participate in international activities and be part of global trade union associations and enjoy membership within them. We will continue our efforts to fully ensure that these rights can be exercised by Russian trade unions.

We believe that the potential for a system of social partnership for trade unions at the international level is still something that can be achieved through our actions at the national level. We do not believe that these are exhausted and are willing to continue cooperation with the Office and the Committee of Experts.

We note the issue of freedom of association from the point of view of workers’ rights and trade unions, and we believe that it is very dangerous to politicize this discussion within the walls of the specialized agencies of the UN, one of which is the ILO.

We believe that here we should focus on issues that have an impact on workers’ rights and trade unions. These are primarily economic organizations, and political issues belong to the domain of political parties working in each country. We look forward to a far-reaching discussion on all aspects of the problems noted by the Committee of Experts. We will look closely at the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and consider improvements to the fundamental rights in operation in our country. We believe that the resolution of problems related to the implementation of fundamental norms with regard to workers in our country is something that can be achieved through technical assistance from the Office on legal and law enforcement issues, currently suspended under the resolution on the Russian Federation adopted by the Governing Body in March 2022 and its subsequent revisions.

Therefore, we suggest, in the interest of continuing constructive cooperation with the ILO in resolving these problems, unblocking the March 2022 resolution on the Russian Federation to allow the technical support of the ILO to be applied to the concrete issue that we are discussing.

Government member, Cyprus – I speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova, the EFTA countries Iceland and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, as well as the United Kingdom align themselves with this statement.

The European Union and its Member States are committed to the respect, protection and fulfilment of human rights including labour rights. We promote universal ratification and effective implementation of fundamental ILO Conventions and support the ILO supervisory system in its crucial role of promoting and supervising the application of ratified standards.

We recall that the Russian Federation has ratified the Convention. We express our serious concern with the latest observation of the Committee of Experts concerning the application of this fundamental Convention. We note with deep concern the Committee of Experts’ observation that several international trade union organizations, including the ITF and the IndustriALL Global Union, have been declared undesirable by the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, allegedly resulting in serious restrictions on the activities of their affiliates in the country.

We call on the Government to provide comments on the allegations concerning the effective prohibition of ITF activities and restrictions on its affiliates in the Russian Federation. We recall the Committee of Experts’ observation that international trade union solidarity constitutes one of the fundamental objectives of any trade union movement.

We further recall that Article 5 of the Convention guarantees the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to affiliate with international organizations of their own choosing, which also implies the right to maintain contact with them, to participate in their activities and to benefit from their services, including through legitimate financial assistance.

We express deep concern at the impact of legislation and regulation on foreign agents and undesirable organizations on freedom of association rights, which also affects trade unions and social partners. We urge the Russian Federation to abolish its repressive legislation and comply with international human rights law.

We deeply regret the absence of steps taken to ensure that trade unions may express their opinions freely, including views criticizing the Government’s economic and social policies, without facing dissolution or other forms of interference. We also regret the lack of progress in ensuring the full recognition, in law and in practice, of the right of trade unions to hold public meetings and demonstrations, which is an essential aspect of freedom of association.

We also express deep concern regarding the 9 April searches of offices and seizures of equipment and documents used by a number of Russian trade unions, among others the KTR, which had provided observations to the Committee, and note it as a further example of violations of freedom of association rights by the Government of the Russian Federation.

We note with concern the Committee of Experts’ observation that persons deprived of liberty who work under employment contracts in penal institutions appear to be prevented from establishing and joining workers’ organizations of their own choosing. We ask the Government to review the Law on Public Associations to ensure that all workers without distinction whatsoever may exercise the rights protected by Article 2 of the Convention.

We regret that no progress has been made in guaranteeing the right to strike of state and municipal civil servants who do not exercise authority in the name of the State, and we call on the Government to review the relevant restrictions. We further deeply regret the continued restrictions on the right to strike of railway workers. We recall the Committee of Experts’ view that railway transport does not constitute an essential service in the strict sense where strikes may be prohibited and call on the Government to amend article 26.2 of the Law on Railway Transport to ensure railway workers’ right to strike, with a negotiated minimum service where necessary.

We urge the Government of the Russian Federation to take concrete and immediate measures to bring law and practice into full conformity with the Convention, in genuine consultation with the social partners. We call on the Government to cooperate fully with the ILO supervisory bodies and to provide detailed information on all measures taken.

The European Union and its Member States will continue to follow the situation closely and remain committed to supporting the effective application of fundamental labour standards.

Government member, Poland – I have the honour to speak on behalf of the following 40 Governments: Albania, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and my own country, Poland. Freedom of association is closely linked to genuine respect for civil liberties. When its fundamental principles are not respected, all the rights and freedoms of workers are at risk.

Over recent years, we have witnessed a systematic shrinking of civic space in the Russian Federation. Of particular concern are measures that severely restrict the ability of trade unions to operate freely, independently, and without fear of retaliation in a broader human rights situation marked by arbitrary detention, unfair trials and persecution of those expressing dissenting views.

In recent years, and particularly following the Russian Federation’s continued illegal, unprovoked and unjustifiable war of aggression against Ukraine, repression and attacks targeting dissenting civil society representatives and organizations, human rights defenders, trade unionists, members of the political opposition and other individuals exercising their human rights and fundamental freedoms have significantly increased.

We echo the Committee of Experts’ deep concern regarding the designation of several independent international trade union organizations including the ITF and IndustriALL, as undesirable, forcing them to cease all operations and exposing individuals engaging with them to administrative and criminal sanctions.

We strongly condemn the continued application of legislation on foreign agents. These laws have been systematically used to stigmatize, control, silence and dismantle civil society, creating a climate of fear. We further condemn the chilling effect these laws have on the exercise of freedom of association, including trade unions’ ability to express their views, organize publicly and operate without interference.

Continued restrictions on the right of trade unions to organize public meetings, demonstrations and other peaceful activities are also a matter of serious concern. We are further concerned about legislative provisions that restrict the right to freedom of association, in particular the exclusion of persons deprived of their liberty from the possibility of establishing and joining workers’ organizations.

We further wish to underline that freedom of expression constitutes a fundamental corollary for the effective exercise of freedom of association. Workers’ and employers’ organizations must be able to publicly express their views, including through the media, and to criticize the economic and social policies of the Government without fear of interference, sanctions or reprisals.

As highlighted by the Committee of Experts, the situation of freedom of association in the Russian Federation has reached a deeply alarming state. The use of restrictive legislation attacks on independent organizations and the repression of civil liberties create an environment in which workers are unable to organize freely, act independently or defend their interests without fear.

This persistent failure to act reflects Russia’s broader disregard for international law, including its obligations under ILO Conventions.

In light of the seriousness and persistence of these issues, our group calls on the Russian authorities to:

• ensure that trade unions can operate freely, without fear, stigma or pressure, and are able to carry out their activities independently;
• refrain from applying legislation on “foreign agents” and “undesirable organizations” to trade unions in any form, and to ensure that such laws do not interfere with their legitimate activities;
• immediately take all necessary measures to guarantee that trade unions can freely organize and participate in public assemblies without interference, intimidation or undue restrictions;
• lift all restrictions on freedom of expression, and ensure, both in law and in practice, the existence of independent means of expression;
• ensure that all workers, without distinction, can establish and join organizations of their choosing;
• ensure full and effective protection against anti-union discrimination and interference;
• guarantee the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly;
• engage in genuine and constructive dialogue with the social partners and the ILO.

Finally, we urge the Russian Federation to immediately and unconditionally withdraw its forces from the territory of Ukraine and to end its violations of workers’ rights and human rights in the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine.

Employer member, United States of America – This case involving the Russian Federation provokes a fundamental component of the Convention, the freedom of expression for both workers’ and employers’ groups. The Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) has repeatedly asserted the existence of this right under the Convention.

As the CFA has instructed, “the full exercise of trade union rights calls for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas”. To this end, workers, employers and their organizations should enjoy freedom of opinion and expression. We recognize that the case involving the Russian Federation regards trade union expression, particularly where that expression may be considered adverse to the State.

Without minimizing the gravity of those principles, we wish to highlight that under the Convention, freedom of expression applies with equal force to the expression of employers’ groups with due consideration to whether that expression otherwise and unduly impairs the rights and freedoms established under the Convention.

It is in this context that we note that the CFA has assessed the scope of employers’ freedom of expression, having confirmed that employers have the right to free speech during a trade union organizing campaign provided that they do not interfere with workers’ right to freedom of association. Stated more specifically, the CFA has acknowledged with approval those legal regimes that allow for employer expression where it can be meaningfully assessed against whether that expression improperly impairs trade union rights under the Convention.

We wish to highlight that this balance taken in concert with all due and accompanying nuance for national law and practice forms a cornerstone for meaningful and effective labour relations.

Worker member, Norway – I will speak on behalf of the trade unions in the Nordic countries. Developments in our neighbouring country, the Russian Federation, are worrying. Over the past few years, we have seen that fundamental labour rights have been suppressed and the ability to conduct legitimate trade union work in line with international standards has deteriorated. From the Nordic side, we will focus on the consequences of a law referred to as the Law on Undesirable Organizations. Under this Law, the ITF, was designated as undesirable in September 2023 and in January 2024, the IndustriALL Global Union received the same designation.

We strongly urge the Russian authorities to reconsider these provisions. I would like to underline, as the Committee of Experts do in their report, that international trade union solidarity constitutes one of the fundamental objectives of any trade union movement. The right for any workers to affiliate with international organizations or workers of their own independent choosing without interference from government is a fundamental right. And following this, the national trade unions have an undisputed right to have contact with international trade union organizations with which they are affiliated, to participate in the activities of these organizations and to benefit from the services which their membership offers.

On this basis, we believe that the decisions of the Prosecutor General’s Office designating the ITF and IndustriALL as undesirable organizations should be reversed.

The ITF and IndustriALL are important actors in international trade union work. Their activities are legitimate. They enjoy a high level of respect from both employees and employers. And they work for workers’ rights through transparent and democratic methods. Our demands are fair and legitimate.

We call on the Government of the Russian Federation to reverse the decisions and practices that prevent Russian trade unions from maintaining or assuming membership in international trade union organizations, including the ITF and IndustriALL, and ensure that the trade unions may engage freely in international cooperation.

Government member, Islamic Republic of Iran – The Islamic Republic of Iran takes this opportunity to share its perspective on the situation in the Russian Federation as examined under the Convention. The Islamic Republic of Iran recognizes that the Russian Federation, as a founding member of this Organization, and having ratified this Convention in 1956, has a long-standing relationship with the ILO and its supervisory mechanism.

We note that the Government has engaged with the Committee of Experts’ comments by providing information on collective bargaining coverage, tripartite consultation within the Russian Tripartite Commission for the Regulation of Social and Labour Relations and ongoing legislative development. We also take note of the judicial record seated in the report itself in 14 out of 15 cases of alleged anti-union discrimination considered by the domestic courts in recent years.

Courts ruled in favour of an employee, which is a concrete indicator of the judicial protection for workers functioning in practice. The Islamic Republic of Iran holds the firm view that sustainable progress in labour rights is most effectively achieved through constructive dialogue and technical cooperation. We encourage the Russian Federation to continue its engagement with the ILO and on outstanding issues and call on the Organization to support this process through targeted technical assistance.

We emphasize the importance of preserving space for dialogue and avoiding approaches that may hinder constructive cooperation. We have always held the conviction that this Organization operates free from politicization and double standards, and we trust that it will continue to reinforce this belief through transparency and impartiality.

We call on all members to pursue genuine, fair and non-discriminatory dialogue in the service of social justice, the very cornerstone of the ILO.

Worker member, Kingdom of the Netherlands – I am speaking on behalf of workers in the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Germany. Freedom of association means that workers’ organizations must be free to organize their activities without interference from public authorities. As the CFA has repeatedly stated, assistance or support from an international trade union organization is a legitimate trade union activity. The Law on Foreign Agents in the Russian Federation stands in contradiction to this principle of freedom of association. The very term “foreign agent” carries clear political and historical connotations in Russian. It is associated with notions such as “foreign spy” or “saboteur”. Therefore, if a trade union organization, leader or an activist is labelled as a “foreign agent”, they may easily lose their possibility to develop activities with workers or interact with public authorities.

The Law specifically excludes employers’ associations from the category of entities that may be labelled as foreign agents. This undermines equality between the social partners and places trade unions at a clear disadvantage. The first criterion is a so-called foreign influence. It is defined in extremely broad terms. It covers not only foreign funding, but also assistance in areas such as organizing, research, trade union expertise and technical support as well as any other form of influence. The second criterion is political activity. It includes actions to influence socio-economic policy, the conduct of public authorities and the regulation of human rights and freedoms, normal and legitimate trade union activities. If a trade union activist is labelled a “foreign agent”, they must attach a prescribed disclaimer to every public act they undertake. This would even apply to acts such as a letter to a public official or a comment on social media. They are also barred from working in education, holding public office and receiving certain forms of income or state financial support.

Trade union organizations labelled as foreign agents have severely restricted access to resources and a limited ability to function. Violations of the Law on Foreign Agents are punishable by heavy administrative fines. Repeated violations may lead to imprisonment for up to two years and in some cases even up to five years. We call on the Government of the Russian Federation to take all necessary measures to exclude trade unions and their organizations from the scope of the Law on Foreign Agents just as employers’ organizations have been excluded.

Government member, Niger – Niger notes the report of the Committee of Experts and the constructive comments that it contains, which contribute to compliance with international labour standards. Our delegation welcomes the steps taken and the efforts made by the Russian Federation to follow up on these comments.

We consider that the Russian Federation has demonstrated a clear commitment to the application of the Convention and has acted diligently to align its national legislation with the provisions of the Convention, in order to promote social dialogue and prevent any interpretation that may impinge on the right to free collective bargaining. We also welcome the efforts undertaken by the Government to align its legislation with international standards, by creating conditions conducive to frank and sincere dialogue with all stakeholders. Niger appreciates the measures taken by the Government of the Russian Federation and remains convinced that the solution to issues in the world of work lies in dialogue and in collaboration among the different stakeholders.

To conclude, Niger invites the Office to provide the Russian Federation with any technical assistance requested to pursue its efforts to implement the Convention, through tripartite social dialogue.

Worker member, Belgium – The Belgian and French workers wish to express their solidarity with Russian workers. On 9 April 2026, security forces conducted searches at the headquarters of the KTR, and the offices of two of its member organizations, the Federal Air Traffic Controllers’ Union, and the Russian Seafarers’ Union. These searches were reportedly related to an internal financial conflict between the leadership of the Federal Air Traffic Controllers’ Union and one of its branches. Following the exclusion of this branch, a former leader reportedly filed a complaint. During the searches, the police seized a significant number of administrative documents, computers, telephones and material belonging to the KTR and its member organizations. We do not know whether criminal proceedings have been initiated. Videos have been posted on social media, in which a police officer accuses the KTR of acting on behalf of foreign donors. It is important to note that these events occurred in a context in which several international trade union organizations were labelled “undesirable”. Since these searches and the seizure of trade union material, the activities of the KTR have been severely disrupted.

We wish to recall that the Convention protects the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration and their activities without interference or obstruction by the public authorities. According to the 2012 General Survey of the Committee of Experts, legislation that provides for extended control over the financial management of organizations, particularly by requiring that the receipt of funds from abroad be approved by the public authorities, is incompatible with the Convention. Furthermore, the settlement of any internal dispute in a trade union and issues relating to membership and members’ dues should be left to the discretion of the trade union, without any intervention by the public authorities. The freedom to organize their administration also includes the right of organizations to be able to dispose of all their fixed and moveable assets unhindered, and that they should enjoy inviolability of their premises, correspondence and communications.

For the Committee of Experts, searches should only be possible when provided for by law, when a warrant has been issued for that purpose by the regular judicial authority, and when there is good reason to presume that such a search will produce evidence for criminal proceedings. Searches should also be restricted to the purpose for which the warrant was issued. They should never be carried out with the sole purpose of intimidating and creating a climate of insecurity, or to discourage trade union membership.

The extent of the searches in the KTR’s offices and the serious consequences that they are having on the activities of the trade union raise questions about compliance with these conditions and, ultimately, the proportionality of this investigative measure. The investigations, videos posted on social media and speculation reported by the media concerning the KTR, its member organizations and leaders, are creating a climate of fear and stigmatization.

We call on the Russian authorities to refrain from conducting searches, seizures, police raids and any other form of pressure or coercive measures against trade unions and their representatives who are legitimately exercising their trade union rights.

Interpretation from Chinese: Government member, China – We thank the representative of the Government of the Russian Federation for the information provided. The Russian Federation attaches importance to the supervisory mechanism. The country has ratified a number of international labour Conventions and has steadily aligned its domestic legislation with relevant international standards, maintaining constructive dialogue and cooperation with workers’ and employers’ organizations and with the ILO.

The main reason for which the case of the Russian Federation has been listed as a double-footnoted case is that the Government of the Russian Federation decided to designate the ITF as an undesirable organization.

We believe that workers’ organizations in any country should abide by the Constitution and laws of that country and should conduct their activities within the bounds of national law. The role of the supervisory mechanism is to assist and encourage Member States to better fulfil their obligations under international Conventions. The relevant measures should be positive and constructive, not destructive.

When examining individual cases, we should adhere to the principles of objectivity and impartiality, give due consideration to the authoritative information provided by Member States, eliminate political bias and fully respect the sovereignty of Member States.

We urge this Committee, as well as the tripartite constituents of the ILO, to respect the Russian Federation’s sovereignty, to take a comprehensive and objective view of its social conditions, to carefully consider the information and commitments presented by the Government of the Russian Federation, to maintain dialogue with it, to provide more technical assistance and to effectively support the country’s economic and social development.

Worker member, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – It is a long-established principle, including in Article 5 of the Convention, that workers’ and employers’ organizations shall have the right to affiliate with relevant international bodies. A union is better able to defend and promote the interests of its members if it can share knowledge and resources with other trade unions, regionally, nationally and internationally. Organizing tactics and negotiating know-how, etc., when shared and promoted along these networks, evolve speedily to adapt to new challenges and circumstances and, in doing so, help unions defend workers and form effective social partnerships with the knowledge base required to secure just outcomes.

In the maritime sector, it is especially limiting on fundamental union activity to be shorn of global networks. Seafaring is by its essential nature a transnational undertaking with shifting jurisdictions and inconsistent access to the rights underpinned by the ILO. The ability of such unions to cooperate and mutually reinforce each other’s activities across national boundaries is therefore essential to their ability to defend their members and ensure the consistent enjoyment of fundamental rights.

The Russian Federation has used its Law on Undesirable Organizations to ban international bodies deemed, via an extrajudicial process based on vague grounds, to be a threat to the Russian Federation. The application of this Law to trade union confederations, starting with the ITF in 2023 and followed by IndustriALL in 2024, denies unions in the Russian Federation the freedom to join international networks.

The consequences of being considered an undesirable organization effectively block trade union support and solidarity. They include administrative penalties and criminal liability for involvement, while such bodies face a total ban on activity in the Russian Federation. These bans have given Russian unions no choice but to end all association with their global unions, denying them access to extensive benefits and, in doing so, contravening Article 5. As an island nation, shipping is central to the British world of work. Between 85 and 95 per cent of all goods are traded by sea.

And in the United Kingdom, the ITF is working with British and global companies to identify and address labour abuses in sectors like logistics, ports and shipping. It promotes collaboration between global companies and unions to resolve problems across supply chains and develops practical tools to help companies uphold labour standards across complex cross-border operations. It is one of the most ambitious, successful and indeed desirable acts of social partnership currently in operation in UK supply chains. But it rests fundamentally on the concept of national unions cooperating across borders to support workers as they move between jurisdictions. The moment some national boundaries present a no-go zone, the aims and objectives of employers and workers as well as the realization of fundamental rights are frustrated.

We urge the Government of the Russian Federation to end the practice of labelling global unions as undesirable organizations and ensure law and practice are consistent with the Convention and the right of unions to join international federations and avail themselves of the benefits of a global cooperative support structure.

Government member, Kazakhstan – Kazakhstan acknowledges the Russian Federation’s long-standing engagement with international organizations and its declared commitment to the advancement of labour rights and the preservation of social partnership mechanisms. Kazakhstan underscores the importance of maintaining a professional and open dialogue among the Government of the Russian Federation, representatives of workers and employers and the ILO’s supervisory bodies in order to address the issues under consideration effectively. Constructive dialogue serves as a vital means to build mutual understanding, identify practical solutions and foster confidence among all parties. Kazakhstan regards such engagement as essential for ensuring that the deliberations lead to sustainable rights respecting outcomes. With respect to comments issued by the ILO supervisory bodies concerning the implementation of the Convention, Kazakhstan affirms its support for continued engagement and constructive cooperation with the ILO to facilitate tangible progress.

Worker member, Brazil – Brazil and the Russian Federation are important members of the BRICS and partners in the pursuit of a more balanced, inclusive and multipolar international order. The workers’ delegation of Brazil fully respects the sovereignty of the Russian Federation. Nothing in this intervention should be interpreted as questioning the Russian Federation’s sovereign right to safeguard its national interests. However, respect for sovereignty must coexist with the rights guaranteed under the Convention, including freedom of association. From the perspective of Brazilian workers, freedom of association strengthens nations.

In Brazil, it is protected by our Constitution, and it is an essential pillar of democratic social dialogue. Brazil has its own trade union model based on freedom of association, collective bargaining, social dialogue and territorial union representation based on unicity.

Our concern regarding this case is not new. In 2024, the Brazilian trade union centres jointly addressed the President of the Russian Federation regarding the designation of the ITF and IndustriALL as undesirable organizations. Our initiative reflected concerns that restrictions on international trade union affiliation may weaken workers’ representation.

Workers’ organizations should remain free to affiliate independently with international organizations of their own choosing. This is especially important in the maritime industry, one of the most globalized sectors of the world economy. Seafarers routinely work across multiple jurisdictions, often aboard vessels registered under flags of convenience, owned in one country, managed from another and operating globally. In this context, workers must remain represented and protected. For maritime workers outside their own country, union affiliation to the ITF is essential.

In August 2025, the seafarers’ unions from the expanded BRICS countries established the BRICS Seafarers’ Forum in Brazil. The BRICS seafarers’ unions affirm their commitment to decent work, maritime sovereignty, social justice and peace among nations. The workers’ delegation of Brazil therefore encourages continued dialogue between the Government of the Russian Federation, workers’ organizations and the supervisory bodies of the ILO. Despite national differences, workers from different nations share common aspirations. Dignity, decent work, social justice and peace. Trade unions exist to ensure that their voices are heard.

Government member, Mali – The Government of the Republic of Mali takes careful note of the discussion on the application of the Convention by the Russian Federation. Mali reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the fundamental principles of the ILO, in particular the promotion of social dialogue and the protection of workers’ rights.

Nevertheless, our Committee must address each situation with impartiality, balance and strict respect for the national sovereignty of the Member States.

In the case before us, it is important to underscore that the administrative and legal measures taken by the authorities of the Russian Federation are aimed at maintaining public order and safeguarding national security. No State can tolerate an organization, even an international one, carrying out actions that could destabilize its constitutional framework or its strategic sectors, such as transport. These decisions are aimed not at restricting legitimate trade union activity but rather at ensuring that all structures operating within the national territory scrupulously comply with the legislation of the host State.

Mali calls on the Committee to avoid any politicization of its technical discussions and encourages the ILO to prioritize a constructive approach based on direct dialogue and technical assistance with the Government of the Russian Federation, rather than unilateral condemnations that do not serve the best interests of workers.

Government member, Lao People’s Democratic Republic – At the outset, my delegation takes note of the report of the Committee of Experts and sincerely thanks the delegation of the Russian Federation for the comprehensive report. Lao People’s Democratic Republic commends the Russian Federation for its commitment to upholding international labour standards and its continued efforts and progress to fulfil its obligation under the ILO-related Convention and mechanism. This includes, first, the integration of core labour standards of the ILO into its domestic law enshrined in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and its federal law. Second, the application of the tripartite social dialogue and collective bargaining frameworks to resolve labour disputes constructively.

We are of the view that the establishment and operation of any foreign or local workers’ federation or trade union must be in compliance with national law and registration. In this regard, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic calls for continued dialogue and cooperation with the consent and engagement of the host country aimed at strengthening the implementation of the ILO standards in a balanced and inclusive manner.

Government member, Algeria – The Algerian delegation is honoured to take part in the discussion concerning the application by the Russian Federation of the Convention on freedom of association and protection of the right to organize. We would like to express our appreciation to the Committee of Experts for its report.

Algeria also thanks the distinguished delegation of the Russian Federation for its comprehensive presentation and for the information provided. We take note of the measures and efforts undertaken to ensure the implementation of the provisions of the Convention by the Government.

Our delegation believes that constructive dialogue and sustained engagement among all concerned parties remain the most effective means of addressing outstanding issues and overcoming challenges related to the implementation of international labour standards. In this regard, we encourage the ILO supervisory bodies and the Russian authorities to continue their cooperation and engagement with a view to achieving tangible progress and resolving the remaining issues in the spirit of dialogue and mutual understanding.

Interpretation from Russian: Government member, Belarus – We would like to thank the delegation of the Russian Federation for the detailed information provided. We consider that qualifying the Russian Federation’s individual case as one requiring urgent consideration by the Committee is excessive; it raises a number of questions.

We think it is unjustified to interpret the assessments of the competent bodies of the Russian Federation as regards the ITF as a violation of international norms on trade union activities. The actions of the Russian authorities to ensure the economic security of the country is being subjected to criticism by the Committee of Experts. At the same time, the actions of the ITF, which harm the Russian State, transport companies, businesses, and also workers, are not receiving an adequate assessment by the Committee of Experts. This approach challenges the impartiality and objectivity of the ILO’ supervisory mechanisms. Questions are raised about the fact that the ITF did not provide assistance to Russian seafarers in situations involving violations of their rights, including unlawful arrests, refusal to provide them with their wages, refusal to provide them with food, and refusal to rescue and evacuate seafarers from Russian vessels in distress. Essentially, the ITF, by blocking the unloading and servicing of Russian vessels in foreign ports, is actively involved in the trade economic sanctions against the Russian Federation introduced by the European Union and the United Kingdom. With this in mind, we think that the position of the Government of the Russian Federation as regards the ITF is justified and we propose that the Committee take due consideration of this.

We notice the political agenda and intentions of Western partners to instrumentalize ILO mechanisms by throwing this issue into the ILO, so as to expand the discriminatory practice against Russian maritime transport to countries that cooperate with counterparties linked to the transport of Russian energy supplies, food and other critically important goods, including for countries of the global South.

We also consider a few other allegations against the Russian Federation unjustified, and we call on the Committee to take into account the well-founded clarifications of the Government as regards the absence of violations of its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

Moreover, we stress the sovereign right of the Government of the Russian Federation to draft and apply legislation on issues of state security, transparency and lawfulness of foreign financing of trade unions, and inadmissibility of external financing of political activity that does not pertain to protecting workers’ rights and the legitimate interests of workers.

We count on constructive dialogue of the Committee and the ILO with the Russian Federation.

Interpretation from Arabic: Government member, Egypt – We have taken due note of the information provided by the Government of the Russian Federation, as well as the remarks of the Committee of Experts on the application of the Convention. We reaffirm the importance of the pursuit of constructive social dialogue and technical cooperation between the Government of the Russian Federation and the ILO to strengthen efforts in promoting the application of the Convention. We take due note of the information provided by the Government of the Russian Federation and the means that have been deployed to face the challenges on the basis of an approach based on pursuing cooperation and recognizing the important role played by the ILO in the area of technical assistance necessary to aid the Government in respecting ILO standards.

Interpretation from Russian: Government representative – In our opening observations, we gave our arguments to all of the comments made by the Committee of Experts, and we have listened closely and analysed the positions that have been expressed in this room by our partners.

I would like to note that a number of issues were touched upon, including the situation in Ukraine and hostile situations for civil society and violations of civil rights taking place in our country. This is not in accordance with reality; they are political in nature and go beyond not only the scope of the Convention but also far beyond the mandate of the ILO as a whole. We trust that the Committee will not take such politicized comments into account when preparing its conclusions on the individual case of the Russian Federation.

In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm our commitment to the ILO labour standards and particularly those provided under the Convention. We are willing to further constructively cooperate with the supervisory machinery of the Organization, including this Committee, and we also trust that the technical cooperation from the ILO will be renewed following the decision in 2022.

Worker members – We thank the Government for the information provided during this discussion. From our discussions, the Laws on Undesirable Organizations and on Foreign Agents significantly restrict the activities of trade unions and violate the Convention. The free exercise of civil liberties is clearly impeded within the current climate, raising serious concerns.

The Committee has heard how the Law on Undesirable Organizations has been applied to international trade union organizations, including the ITF and the IndustriALL Global Union. The consequences are clear: Russian trade unions have been forced to sever affiliations with international organizations of their choosing and have been deprived of the support, services and solidarity that membership in those organizations provides.

The Worker members are also deeply concerned by reports of inspections, searches, document seizures and other investigative actions directed at trade union organizations. The State is under the obligation to ensure that such measures are never used in a manner that interferes with legitimate trade union activities or creates a hostile atmosphere for the exercise of civil liberties.

The Law on Foreign Agents gives rise to equally serious concerns. The broad scope of the legislation, the extensive compliance obligations, the severe sanctions, and the uncertainty surrounding its application create a significant intrusion and severe restriction on trade union activity.

The Committee of Experts has observed that these measures may restrict trade unions’ ability to receive assistance from international workers’ organizations and to engage in international cooperation. Such restrictions are incompatible with the principles embodied in the Convention. The evidence here confirms that, without creating a climate conducive to the free exercise of civil liberties, trade union rights cannot be meaningfully protected or exercised.

The Worker members are of the view that the Government of the Russian Federation should take all necessary measures to exclude trade unions and their organizations from the scope of application of both laws and must equally ensure that human rights defenders and other civil society organizations can function freely in a climate conducive to the exercise of civil liberties.

The Worker members consider that the decisions of the Prosecutor General’s Office designating the ITF and IndustriALL as undesirable organizations should be reversed. That would enable Russian trade union organizations to exercise, at their own discretion, full membership in those bodies and to avail themselves of the services and benefits that such membership affords.

The Worker members consider the pressure exerted on Russian trade unions and their associations in the form of inspections, searches and police raids completely unacceptable. Trade unions stand for peace and social justice and must be free to advance and defend those interests in their administration, programmes and activities. Pursuing peace, social justice and respect for freedom of association, including civil liberties, is in line with the ILO’s mandate. The Government of the Russian Federation must refrain from subjecting trade unions and their associations to coercive measures in the course of the exercise of their functions.

The Workers members call upon the Government of the Russian Federation to take all necessary measures to ensure that trade unions and their organizations are excluded from the scope of application of the Law on Undesirable Organizations and the Law on Foreign Agents; reverse the decision designating the ITF and the IndustriALL Global Union as undesirable organizations, thereby enabling Russian trade unions freely to determine their international affiliations; cease all forms of interference, pressure, inspections, searches and investigative actions that may undermine the independence and autonomy of trade unions, ensuring the right to organize and express themselves; guarantee, in law and in practice, the right of trade unions to affiliate with international organizations, receive assistance, including financial assistance, from such organizations, and participate in international trade union activities without fear of administrative or criminal sanctions; engage in genuine consultations with the social parties regarding any legislative reforms affecting freedom of association and trade union rights; and provide detailed information to the Committee of Experts on all measures taken to give effect to the Convention by 1 September 2026 and accept a technical advisory mission of the ILO.

Employer members – The Employer members thank the various speakers who took the floor for their interventions and the information provided. We also thank the Government of the Russian Federation for participating in our proceedings today. The Employers reiterate that the Convention is a fundamental Convention and, as such, we strongly encourage compliance with it, in law and in practice.

In light of the Committee of Experts’ comments and today’s discussions, the Employer members would like to recommend the following:

First, we ask the Government to provide information on its declaration of the ITF and the IndustriALL Global Union as undesirable organizations. This will enable the Committee of Experts to assess whether such determination in terms of the laws of the Russian Federation is consistent with the Convention.

Second, we ask the Government to provide comments on the allegations of infringement of the right of trade unions to express opinions, including those criticizing the Government’s economic and social policies.

Third, we ask the Government to take the necessary measures in consultation with the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations to ensure that national laws and regulations are compatible with the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations under the Convention.

Fourth, the Employers ask the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the full recognition of the right of trade unions to hold public meetings and demonstrations, both in law and in practice.

Fifth, we ask the Government to review its Law on Public Associations so as to ensure that persons deprived of their liberty can enjoy the right to establish and join workers’ organizations of their own choosing.

To conclude, we count on the collaboration of the Government for the implementation of these recommendations and, to the extent necessary, we call on the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

Chairperson – This brings us to the end of the discussion on this case. I thank the Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Protection and all the speakers who took the floor for their participation.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government and of the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted the difference of views on the interaction of the Law on Undesirable Organizations and the Law on Control over the Activities of Persons Under Foreign Influence on the one hand and freedom of association rights under the Convention on the other.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee urged the Government to take effective and time-bound measures to:

• provide detailed information regarding the decisions designating international workers’ organizations as “undesirable organizations” and comments on the allegations concerning the consequences of those designations;
• ensure that the law is implemented in conformity with the Convention;
• ensure that national law and practice do not interfere with workers’ rights and legitimate trade union activities in line with the Convention, including:
• the right to form and join organizations of their own choosing to promote their occupational interests;
• the right to affiliate with international organizations of their own choosing;
• the right to express themselves freely, including in respect of Government policies.

The Committee invited the Government to implement the recommendations and provide a report to the Committee of Experts by 1 September 2026 and to avail itself of ILO technical assistance, if needed.

Interpretation from Russian: Government representative – I am the Deputy Representative of the Russian Federation Mission to the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva. Having noted the Committee’s conclusions which have been prepared as a result of the review of the individual case concerning the Russian Federation, we will carefully consider these conclusions.

We reaffirm our commitment to ILO international labour standards, including those enshrined in the Convention. We stand ready to engage in dialogue and interaction with the supervisory bodies of the ILO, including the Committee of Experts. At the same time, we would like to note the politicized resolution of the 343rd Governing Body session with regard to a cessation of technical assistance to the Russian Federation. In this connection, we find it hard to imagine how the recommendation could be implemented with regard to us availing ourselves of ILO technical assistance in view of the well-known objective circumstances beyond the control of the Russian Federation.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2005, Publication: 93rd ILC session (2005)

A Government representative stated that important and complex questions should be examined in a retrospective manner. The Labour Code of the Russian Federation was adopted over two years ago. The work on the Code was carried out in an open and democratic manner, in close cooperation with the social partners. The Labour Code had set up new labour relations, which had been formed after the transition from a centrally-planned to a market economy. In conditions of the social and economic changes, the Government of the Russian Federation and representatives of workers' and employers' organizations had reached social consensus and agreed that the new Labour Code was a crucial document for the development of the country. For the first time, the Labour Code laid down the principle of tripartite cooperation and developed further the fundamental provisions of the Russian Constitution. The Code had been drafted with the help of ILO experts, who had prepared numerous recommendations, most of which had been accepted and incorporated. With the help of the ILO, new social dialogue institutions had been developed; they included tripartite and bipartite bodies and mechanisms. All this work had been carried out by the Tripartite Commission on Social and Labour Relations, by reaching mutually acceptable solutions. To supplement the Labour Code, additional legislative acts had been adopted in consultation with the social partners. Twenty-one sections of the Labour Code dealt with the issue of settlement of labour disputes. The Code also regulated other issues in the field of labour, such as wages, employment and social protection. Because labour relations were constantly changing due to varying economic conditions, the work to improve the Labour Code was an ongoing process. By the decision of the Government and the State Duma, a tripartite working group had been established to analyse the practice and to prepare draft amendments to the Code. The Government's aim, as demonstrated by the ratification of all eight fundamental Conventions of the ILO, was to embody international standards in the national legislation.

With respect to the observations of the Committee of Experts, and more particularly to the quorum required for a strike ballot, section 410 was in conformity with international law, in particular with article 8(1)(d) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. At the same time, the question of reducing down to 50 per cent the number of delegates needed to decide on strike action was being presently discussed by the working group on the improvement of the Labour Code. Concerning restrictions imposed on the right to strike of certain categories of workers, the Labour Code provided for an exhaustive list of cases where a strike was prohibited. These included workers employed in the sectors of the economy relating to defence and the security of the population. These restrictions were formulated on the basis of article 17 of the Constitution, which provided that the exercise of individual rights and freedoms should not violate the rights and freedoms of other persons. This approach was in conformity with article 8(1)(c) and (2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. On 1 February 2005, a new Law on State Civil Service had come into effect. This law had revoked the provision previously contained in section 11 of the Law on State Service, which had contained restrictions on the right to strike for state service employees. Section 410 of the Code, which provided for a requirement to indicate a possible duration of the strike, did not restrict in any way the right of workers to take strike action, as it did not provide for any time limits imposed on strikes. In fact, in order to extend the duration of strikes, no additional action was needed. After the entry into force of the Labour Code, and in particular section 413, restrictions on strike action provided for in other previously adopted legislative acts, which contradicted section 413 of the Code, no longer applied.

In respect of workers whose right to strike was restricted by the legislation in force, the Government representative pointed out that these workers enjoyed the right to organize and to settle their labour disputes in court. The current legislation provided for a limited list of undertakings where minimum services had to be ensured during a strike. These included organizations responsible for the safety and health of the population. Minimum services were determined in consultation with trade unions, and only if consensus was not reached, the executive body had the responsibility to draw up such a list, taking into account the interests, safety and health of the population. The workers had the right to appeal this decision in court. Furthermore, pointing out to the recent developments, he explained that four centres responsible for settling collective labour disputes had been set up in the Russian Federation. It was intended that their decisions as to establishing the lists of minimum services would be final.

He also explained the interpretation to be given to section 11 of the Labour Code and pointed out that this section did not refer to the restrictions as regards the application of labour legislation to such categories of workers as women, youth and workers with family responsibilities but, on the contrary, referred to the additional guarantees provided for by the Russian legislation. More specifically, it concerned the prohibition of work in unhealthy and dangerous conditions for pregnant women and persons under 18 years old.

Finally, he stressed that the issue of improving labour legislation was the sphere of competence of the social partners and that this work was carried out in the framework of bodies established on a tripartite basis and included examination of the application of labour standards in practice.

The Employer members noted that this was the first time that a case concerning this country was being discussed in the post-Cold War context. The issue of trade union monopoly which had been a long-standing problem in the country was no longer in question and a much broader right to organize was now available. As to the substance of the issue under discussion, the Employer members considered that, as the right to strike was not explicitly mentioned in the Convention, its application could be subject only to a general appreciation, although the Committee of Experts had made specific comments in this respect. In the Employer members' view, the Government should be commended for indicating that they were in the process of resolving the issues raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts. With regard to the requirement of organizing a ballot in order for a strike to be authorized, the Employer members considered that such a requirement was in line with the fundamental need to safeguard the democratic rights of trade union members. It was appropriate, therefore, that a strike ballot should involve the majority of the workers in a workplace. Although a requirement for all workers to vote would have been too high, the two-thirds requirement of the Labour Code did not seem excessive. The Employer members further wished to emphasize that the precedents of the Committee on Freedom of Association had no bearing on the question of whether a requirement to indicate the duration of a strike was in conformity with the Convention, given that the Committee on Freedom of Association was not limited to the language of the Convention. The same was true with regard to the question of essential services which should vary depending on the circumstances of each country. Where a general prohibition of strikes existed, however, appropriate alternatives involving recourse to a third party should be available to permit to overcome the impasse in negotiations.

The Worker members recalled that the case concerned the application of Articles 2 and 3 of Convention No. 87 which had been severely and negatively impacted by several provisions of the Labour Code of 1995 on which the Committee of Experts had widely commented. They had taken note of the modifications to this legislation which had been announced by the Government and would observe its effects in practice before pronouncing themselves in this respect.

The Worker members observed that: (1) although the right to strike was in fact enshrined in the Labour Code, in practice recourse to strike action was subject to conditions such as two-thirds of workers concerned being present at the general assembly and a quorum of 50 per cent of voters required, making strikes practically impossible at the sector or intersectoral level; (2) by requiring trade union organizations to stipulate the duration of the strike, the law prejudiced the rights of these organizations to carry out activities without interference from the public authorities; (3) the executive authorities of the State did not constitute an independent body which had the trust of all parties for deciding a dispute over the establishment of a minimal service, as the Convention foresaw; (4) the ban on strike action for all railway employees as well as for many other categories of state employees (public servants exercising authority in the name of the State) greatly exceeded the limits generally allowed for this restriction; (5) where strike action was prohibited it was essential that collective conflicts could be resolved by an independent body and not by the Government.

The Worker members also remarked that, generally speaking, these criticisms had already been made in 2003 and even in 2001 and the Conference Committee awaited not just a small step by the Government but a plausible demonstration of its genuine will to follow up quickly on the measures recommended by the Conference Committee and by the Committee of Experts.

The Worker member of the Russian Federation speaking on behalf of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia, the largest trade union in the country, recalled that trade union pluralism existed in the Russian Federation and that this fact explained different interpretations given to various legislative provisions. The right to strike was an inalienable right of workers and trade unions, which represented their social and economic interests. The strike was the most radical measure to which trade unions had recourse only in exceptional cases. The strike was not an end in itself but a response to flagrant and persistent violations of workers' rights and interests. If employers fully complied with the agreements concluded with trade unions through collective bargaining, and if the Government and the supervisory bodies rigorously controlled the application of labour and other legislation, workers would have no reason to have recourse to such an extreme measure to defend their interests. As the opposite was often taking place, labour legislation needed to contain provisions which would allow workers, without any excessive restrictions or prohibitions, to fully exercise their inalienable right to strike.

The Committee of Experts had presented its observations on the application of the Convention by the Russian Federation on more than one occasion. Two years ago, the Committee of Experts had made similar observations, to which the Government had not provided a response in a timely manner.

He agreed with the Committee of Experts, which considered that the list of professions where the right to strike was restricted was excessively broad. He also considered that the disputes which could lead to strike action should be settled by courts which were, by their nature and according to the Constitution, independent bodies, and not by the Government, as provided by the legislation. Moreover, the quorum required for a strike ballot might have been in fact lowered to a reasonable level. He further questioned the requirement to notify the duration of the strike, which should be allowed to last as long as its goals had not be reached and the dispute not resolved.

Other points, not raised by the Committee of Experts, but which were nevertheless problematic to trade unions, concerned the absence of a right granted to national sectoral trade unions to call a general strike on enterprises of a given sector. The strike was a prerogative of an enterprise trade union. That meant that workers of the same economic sector could not express their solidarity with other workers trying to solve an industrial dispute with their employer. In law as in practice, a strike at a large corporation belonging to the same owner but regrouping enterprises of various sectors of the economy would be impossible. That explained the fact that a large number of strikes in the country had been declared illegal. The speaker finally expressed his satisfaction with the fact that the Committee of Experts was constantly reminding the Government of its responsibility to bring legislation into conformity with the Conventions it had ratified. A complete application of international labour standards was beneficial to all - the Government, employers, and above all, to workers.

The Worker member of Romania said that this case had been examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association in 2003 and 2004. In this respect, it could be considered a flagrant violation of the Convention which was a fundamental ILO Convention.

Section 11 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation envisaged restrictions on the right to strike for certain persons, including persons with two jobs, persons with family responsibilities, women, young persons and civil servants. The Government imposed other restrictions on the right to strike for holders of a contract under civil law, who were excluded from the scope of application of the Labour Code. These restrictions constituted a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, which provided that workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, should have the right to establish and to join organizations of their own choosing.

Section 410 of the Labour Code required that at least two-thirds of the workers be present at the meeting in which the decision to call a strike was being decided and that the decision be adopted by at least half of the delegates present. Furthermore, section 410 of the Labour Code required workers' organizations to notify the Government of the planned duration of the strike, which constituted a violation of their right to organize without interference by the public authorities.

Section 412 of the Labour Code contained an exhaustive list of organizations and enterprises in which a minimum service had to be assured in the event of a strike. The disagreements concerning the establishment of a minimum service were regulated by an executive body of the Russian Federation under section 412 of the above Labour Code. However, in accordance with ILO practice, these disagreements had to be regulated by an independent body. By virtue of section 413 of the above Labour Code, the right to strike was prohibited for certain activities in the productive sector as well as for essential services, for which decisions concerning collective conflicts were taken by the Government. However, in the event of restrictions or limitations on the right to strike, which deprived workers of an important means of protection, workers should benefit from conciliation, mediation and arbitration measures.

Taking into consideration that this was the second time that this case was being discussed in this Committee, the Government should take all the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Employer member of the Russian Federation stated that the work on the amendment of the Labour Code was presently under way and carried out by the special working group created by the State Duma. Several provisions had already been amended but sections 412 and 413 had not yet been discussed. Since the work on the amendment of the Labour Code was not yet concluded, it was premature to examine this piece of legislation. He finally pointed out that the Employer members considered that the provisions of the Convention did not contain any reference to the right to strike and therefore did not confer such a right.

Another Government representative (Deputy Minister of Health and Social Development) concluded by stating that her Government was prepared to cooperate further with the ILO on the issues discussed and to report on the progress made in this respect. She stressed once again that the efforts were being made to amend the Labour Code and that the work in this respect was carried out in consultation with the social partners.

The Employer members took note of the Government's last indication that it was committed to studying appropriate amendments to the legislation so as to bring it in line with the Convention. It was however often the case that governments set up commissions working on legislative reform over long periods of time. They therefore wished to ask the Government to ensure that the working group would constitute an effective process that would lead to concrete improvements of the situation in a short period of time.

The Worker members emphasized that the consistent practice of adopting a number of measures of a limited scope shortly before the Conference, did not reflect positively on the States concerned. They requested that, in its report, the Committee call on the Government to rapidly take measures to ensure that the provisions of the Labour Code, which had been criticized for such a long time, be finally brought into conformity with the Convention, and also to request the Government to provide information on the measures adopted in the next session of the Conference.

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and of the detailed discussion that followed. The Committee recalled that the comments made by the Committee of Experts referred to the rights of employers' and workers' organizations to organize their administration and activities without interference by the public authorities.

The Committee took note of the Government's statement, according to which the Labour Code had been the subject of extensive consultations with the social partners and that a tripartite working party of the Duma would examine the effectiveness of the provisions in the Labour Code with a view to possible modifications; the working party was currently discussing certain reforms to the provisions mentioned by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee requested the Government to take all measures necessary for the process under way to be carried out in an efficient and rapid manner in order to bring national legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention in the near future. The Committee requested the Government to send before the next meeting of the Committee of Experts a detailed report containing full information on progress made in this respect.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1987, Publication: 73rd ILC session (1987)

A Government representative said that his Government was guided by the wish to co-operate and to have a dialogue and was ready once again to provide factual information and to express its position on the relevant comments of the Committee of Experts.

The Government strictly observed Convention No. 87. The Constitution of the USSR, the Constitutions of the Union Republics and the existing legislation guaranteed the freedom to establish trade unions and trade union activities. Article 51 of the Constitution of the USSR guaranteed to citizens the right of association in public organisation, including trade unions. Citizens' membership in trade unions was carried out on a purely voluntary basis. All social organisations were guaranteed by the Constitution the conditions for carrying out their tasks successfully, and this fully applied to trade unions as well. Under the basic legislation of the USSR and the Union Republics, state bodies did not interfere in the internal life of trade unions. Occupational unions acted according to the by-laws they adopted and were not subject to registration with state bodies. In the legislation it was provided that state bodies, enterprises, institutions and organisations were obliged to assist trade unions in their activities. Soviet legislation clearly reflected the right of trade unions to represent the interests of workers and employees and to engage in supervision to ensure respect for labour legislation. In today's conditions of an accelerated social and economic development of Soviet society, and in conditions of restructuring and democratising life in society, the role of trade unions was increasing, and this could be seen from the 18th Trade Union Congress held in February this year. The Constitution of the USSR provided the right of trade unions to take part in state administration, and article 113 of the Constitution guaranteed to the trade unions the right of initiating legislation. For example, in the past five years the all-union Central Council of Trade Unions had presented more the 100 proposals to the Government on important social questions relating to employment. These proposals had been reflected positively in various government texts as well as in the five-year plan for the economic and social development of the Soviet Union for the coming five years and for the period up to the year 2000.

The speaker stressed that at present the trade unions were taking an active part in the drafting of a new law on retirement which would improve the pensions benefits granted to workers when they retired. At the 18th Trade Unions Congress referred to earlier, the question had been raised of the need to elaborate a new law on holidays for workers and employees, including the need to increase the minimum duration of such holidays. The issue of a new legislation which would provide women with the possibility more fully to exercise their right to part-time daily or weekly work also been raised. At the Congress, the new charter for the trade unions had been approved, strengthening the role of the trade unions in economic and social life as well as their democratic activities.

Convention No. 87 was being fully respected and applied in his country, and some provisions of the legislation went even further than those guarantees laid down by the Convention. For instance, article 137 of the Penal Code of the RSFSR, and analogous articles of the Penal Codes of other Union Republics, provided for penal responsibility for hampering the legitimate activities of the trade unions and their bodies.

The comments of the Committee of Experts, as contained in paragraph 1 of its observation, dealt with the 1971 Regulations respecting trade union committees and section 230 of the Labour Code of the RSFSR, which also determined the basic rights of trade union committees in enterprises and various establishments. In the view of the Experts, these standard-setting provisions seemed to be worded in such a way as to preclude the possibility of setting up trade unions which did not presently exist. It must be categorically stated that this was untrue, unfounded and a biased interpretation of the legislation. The Experts were unable to give a single example which would confirm the existence in the legislation of his country of any prohibitions regarding the setting up of new unions.

In none of its provisions did Soviet labour legislation impose the single trade union movement. The Government had already had the opportunity of stating in the present Committee that the name formerly used-"local, factory and works trade union Committee"-the title of which the Committee of Experts felt was insufficiently broad, had been replaced in May 1982 by a broader title-"Trade Union Committee". In this connection, the provision regarding the 1971 Regulations respecting Trade Union Committees applied to any trade union committee, independently of where it was set up.

In the report sent to the Office, examples had already been given of how this provision was applied in Kolkhoz committees, student committees and teachers' organisations.

As regarded the Committee of Experts' comments on sections 230 to 231 and 233 to 235 of the Labour Code of the RSFSR, there was no prohibition in any of these sections. These sections provided for broad powers of trade unions in enterprises so as to protect the interests of the workers and to meet their social and cultural needs, and they contained important guarantees of the activities of trade union organisations and their elected representatives. It must be repeated that the interpretation of these sections by the Committee of Experts was an incorrect and biased one.

One should not have the impression that his Government felt that the legislation dealing with the functions and rights of trade unions did not require improvement. On the contrary, the dynamics of social and economic development at the present time and the restructuring process had given a new stimulus to the improvement of Soviet labour legislation. The 1983 Act on labour collectives had already considerably enriched the functions of trade union committees in enterprises and institutions. Very soon, new labour legislation would be adopted on state enterprises. A Bill, related to the reform of economic management, had been published and was being discussed by workers. This Bill provided for an active role for trade union organisations in the management of enterprises and in the solution of social problems in the interest of workers, including the selection of the directors of enterprises and other administrators.

Finally, at the 18th Trade Union Congress, the question had been raised of the need to draw up a special law regarding trade unions. The future legislation would include new rights of unions in the fields of democracy and socialist self-management. In the legislation, there was provision for a right of trade unions, at all levels, to stop certain administrative decisions or other state decisions which would violate labour legislation or would prejudice social interests of labour collectives or trade union rights. This was to be a new step to strengthen the role of trade unions in the protection of workers' interests.

The comments addressed to the USSR and other socialist countries in the 1987 report of the Committee of Experts were not shared by all the members of the Committee of Experts. On page 143 of that report (English text) one saw the views of two experts who made well-founded comments and reservations. These comments and reservations dealt with the need to take into account the different situations and conditions existing for historical reasons in various spheres of social and economic relations in various countries. This showed that the views of the Committee of Experts were not shared by all members, but only a number of them.

It was necessary to state that the views of the Committee of Experts on the application of the Convention, which the Committee had felt it necessary to recall in its report, had frequently been contested by members of various governments in this Committee, notably in its present session. The central question here, if one looked at the views of the Committee of Experts, was the attitude towards the single trade union movement. There was no need to prove that labour and the trade union movement appeared long before the ILO was set up, and even longer ago that the setting up of the Committee of Experts and the adoption of Convention No. 87. This movement had come into existence and would continue to develop because of objective trends and social laws. The trends and efforts of the working class towards unity, in particular within the framework of a trade union movement, had long been a fact. In addition, the majority of the Committee of Experts seemed to think that the trade union movement should develop according to its own interpretation of the Convention. The Government, in the view of the Committee of Experts, should act not basing themselves on social and economic realities which existed in the country but on the basis of the views and concepts of that Committee with regard to the Convention. As far as his country was concerned, the unity of the trade union movement had developed immediately after the Socialist October Revolution of 1917, and today there was no social, economic and political basis for splitting the trade union movement. The approach adopted by the Committee of Experts was unjustified because it considered the trade union movement and relevant national legislation in the context of Convention No. 87, whereas everything should be exactly the opposite. This Convention should be considered in the context of the reality of the trade union movement and the national legislation in each country.

Concerning Point 2 of the observation made by the Committee of Experts the speaker stressed that the Committee of Experts had decided once again to take up the question of the relationship between the Communist Party and trade unions in the USSR in connection with Convention No. 87. This was an artificial question and it was artificially linked up with Convention No. 87 because the relationship between the political party and the trade unions was not a subject for consideration under this Convention. The Government had provided the necessary information and explanations on this question a number of times. The trade unions were not subject to the Communist Party. The relations between the Party and the trade unions were political relations, with members of the Party being also members of the trade unions. It should be stressed that the Convention in no way forbade the workers in trade union organisations from being members of a political party and to engage in political activities through trade unions. There were similar relationships between political parties and trade unions in non-socialist countries as well. In his country the relationship between the Communist Party and the trade unions were not legal relationships, and did not impinge on the statutory rights of trade unions (the guarantee of independence of trade unions) which were contained in the legislation of which he had already spoken in detail.

Party organisations acted within the framework of the Constitution, and in particular in its article 6, but the Committee of Experts had for some reason completely disregarded this provision. The work of the Party was carried out with methods of persuasion, and Party policy was implemented thanks to the trust placed by the various members in the correctness o this policy; this, of course, instilled confidence between the members of the Party and of the trade unions. Therefore many Party members, as well as non-Party members, were elected to trade union bodies. What was involved well political relationships, whereas the Committee of Experts for some reason felt that it could evaluate the degree of application of the Convention from the perspective of such relationships. This was an example of the manner in which the Committee of Experts, in spite of its own rules which it had set out in paragraphs 21 and 22 of its report, had taken on itself the interpretation of the Convention and the national legislation.

Regarding the last comment of the Committee of Experts, on the Order of 15 May 1935, the Committee of Experts was also, unfortunately, arbitrarily interpreting national legislation. In the 1935 Order, it was clearly stated that it dealt with all-Union congresses and social organisations and not any trade union meeting or conference, whereas the comments of the Committee of Experts referred to any meeting or conference of the trade unions. It was unfortunate that the Committee of Experts had made such an inaccurate statement. The Government of his country had already said a number of times that this legislation had not been applied for a long time and that it would be repealed in the general process of revision and improvement of legislation. At present in the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union favourable consideration was being given to the proposal made by trade unions and other social organisations to replace the Order of 15 May 1935. The speaker regretted that the Committee of Experts not only had not taken into account the information provided by the Government, in particular with regard to the points just mentioned, but had also failed to consider information available to the International Labour Office. Some time ago, on the invitation of the Government, the Office had sent a special mission to the USSR to study the actual situation regarding freedom of association there. The members of the mission had submitted a special report. The report contained a very detailed account of the trade union situation and in particular reference to the fact that the structure, functions and rights of Soviet trade unions could not be understood without taking into account the economic, political and social structure of the Soviet State. Unfortunately the Committee of Experts just maintained its formal position, and that the above information had been completely ignored. The Committee of Experts had also not taken into account the discussions in this Committee. In 1983 this Committee had considered the question of the Convention, stating that it noted that after a lengthy and detailed discussion regarding the application of the Convention in the USSR fundamental differences of opinion remained but that this extensive exchange of views which had taken place showed that there was a sincere desire to continue a dialogue. Finally, he stated that his Government was guided and would continue to be guided by a desire for co-operation and dialogue.

The Worker member of the USSR stated that the Committee of Experts was not taking into account the annual reports of his Government, which had put forward new views and new explanations. Nor had it taken into account the changes taking place in the USSR over the last few years with regard to labour legislation. The last report adopted by the Committee of Experts had not taken into account changes in labour legislation or the changes in the situation of the trade union movement in the USSR since 1983, when this question was last discussed. For example, at the beginning of its observation, the Committee of Experts had referred to 1971 Regulations which had been amended four times since then. But the Committee of Experts had unfortunately not taken this into account. Over the last four years, his country had adopted legislation concerning labour collectives which, in accordance with the last Constitution of the USSR of 1977 and together with the organisations of trades unions representing workers in enterprises, gave a new concept of the labour collective in the enterprise. Through this new form of Participation of workers in the management of social and other affairs of the enterprise, the workers were given very wide-ranging rights. For a number of months there had been a broad-based examination of a draft law on state enterprises, which had been proposed at the 18th Trade Union Congress. This Bill provided a new basis for collaboration between the administration and the workers of the enterprise. It was still under discussion but was already being implemented on a local basis. In many enterprises workers were participating in the election of directors. Councils of labour collectives were being established, much broader based than the previous trade union organisations. Apart from trade unionists the councils included representatives of organisations of women and young workers and a whole range of categories of workers. So this was a new form of workers' organisation, reflecting the development of the trade union movement and overall workers' organisation.

At the last trade union congress, a proposal had been made for the adoption of a special law with regard to trade unions in the USSR. At the present time, the functions of trade unions, their rights and their powers were treated in a number of different laws. It was high time to collect all these diverse legal instruments in one labour code; and it would be useful to create one law which would very clearly reflect the rights, functions, tasks and the role of the trade unions in the context of developed socialist society. It was intended to include the decision adopted at the 18th Trade Union Congress, permitting a trade union to reject any state decision adopted without trade union agreement and which was against workers' interests. This law would also include a new provision, proposed at the last Trade Union Congress, that the trade unions were a counterweight to the technocratic tendencies in the economy. This was another important aspect defining an essentially new role of the trade unions.

Until now, trade unions had always been able to expand and defend the rights of workers. The legal, economic and material possibilities of trade unions were exceptionally wide-ranging. Seventy per cent of the decisions taken by the administration could be adopted only with the agreement of the trade union committees in the enterprises. In 1986, more than 120,000 persons in the administration had been fined because they had allowed violations of labour legislation to occur. Over 10,000 persons in the administration had been removed from their posts because they had not taken trade union rights into account. This showed very clearly the wide-ranging rights and powers of trade union organisations. The report of the Committee of Experts contained a number of inadmissible statements. For example, the Committee of Experts had asked the Government to indicate whether workers had adopted any initiative to establish independent workers' organisations. Since 1917 there had been no attempt to create any kind of independent autonomous trade union.

The Committee of Experts had reached the conclusion that the system of trade union monopoly had been indirectly created by the law. It had not been created indirectly by the law, but rather by the workers, who had carried out a bitter struggle before the Revolution and who had created this system themselves. The final conclusion in the first part of the Committee of Experts' conclusions was surprising and inexplicable. This conclusion was very difficult to understand from a legal point of view. The Committee of Experts had attempted to impose its interpretation as the only possible one, an arbitrary interpretation of ILO Conventions.

With regard to the relationship between the Party and the trade unions, it was implied that the political party and the trade unions were all state bodies, but this was in contradiction with the Constitution. The Committee of Experts had, in quite an arbitrary manner, cited article 6 of the Constitution which said that the Party is the leading and guiding force of Soviet Society and the nucleus of its political system. It cited this part of the Constitution but it ignored other parts of the Constitution, as for example, the second part of the same article providing that all party organisations shall function within the framework of the Constitution. The second paragraph of article 4 provided that State and public organisations must respect the Constitution and Soviet laws. Article 2 also made it clear that all State authority in the USSR was exercised through the Soviet of People's Deputies, and that other state bodies came under the authority of these Soviets of People's Deputies. Other articles of the Constitution clearly defined the nature of a public organisation in the USSR. The Committee of Experts had taken out of context one part of the Constitution but it should look at the legislation as a whole. Why could the Committee of Experts not consider another important political document, the Constitution of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union itself, which stated clearly that the Party acted within the framework of the Constitution of the USSR, and provided political guidance for the public organisations of the USSR, but that the Party did not replace co-operatives or trade unions, nor did it interfere in the operations of those bodies.

With regard to the third section of the report of the Committee of Experts, the Government representative had already said that the possible repeal of this law, which had never been enforced over 52 years, was now being considered at their urgent request. With regard to the law concerning collective farmworkers, a decision had been taken in May, and was being published in two newspapers, including the newspaper of the trade union organisation, Trud.

It would be important to have an international seminar on the role and functions of trade unions in socialist countries. For four years they had been calling on the Office to organise such a seminar, and had been told that there was no opportunity of doing this. He could not understand why this was not possible. It was proposed that this be carried out in his own country, which would pay the costs. He would once again like to propose to the Office and to the members of the present Committee that it consider the holding of such a seminar in his country. This could do away with many misunderstandings which had arisen in the course of discussions in this Committee.

The Employers' members, referring to the Government representative's statement to the effect that the Committee of Experts had been repeating the same comments year after year, indicated that the reverse could be said: the Government was also repeating itself. In fact, the Committee continued to refer to the same legal provisions and regulations which were at variance with the requirements of the Convention. This could be seen in particular with regard to the 1971 Regulations on the rights of local, factory and works trade union committees, which excluded the possibility of any other workers' organisation and was therefore incompatible with the provisions of the Convention. The Government representative had referred to certain concrete changes which reinforced the significance and influence of the trade unions. This might be so, but the question raised by the Committee of Experts had referred to the possibility of establishing other trade union organisations. It was not the Government's desire nor the objective of the Convention that the trade union movement should be split; but the matter under consideration was the possibility of establishing workers' organisations by the free choice of the workers themselves. The Government representative had indicated that the possibility of creating independent trade union organisations was not excluded, but he had added that there was no need for this because the existing organisation already carried out all the tasks. The Committee of Experts had raised a relevant question when it had asked the Government whether there had been any action taken by workers with a view to establishing workers' organisations independent of the existing trade union structure. If the establishment of other trade union organisations was authorised, it would have taken place already, considering the size of the country and the number of workers. Ten years ago in this Committee a Government representative had not altogether excluded the possibility of the establishment of a trade union organisation if the workers expressed a desire for this. The response given today to the same question was a little different. In any event, it could be confirmed that with regard to the question of trade union monopoly, the situation remained without any substantial progress.

With regard to the links between the Communist Party and the trade unions, according to article 6 of the Constitution of the USSR, the Communist Party was the force that directed and guided Soviet society and was the nucleus of the social organisations. The Committee of Experts was not wrong to point to this provision. In effect, the Communist Party had a guiding and preponderant role, and when the Committee of Experts had mentioned these links it was not referring to an individual or personal relationship, but to a very broad influence established in the Constitution. Without any doubt the Committee of Experts was referring to the Party's functions of direction and guidance which were very far-reaching, and the exercise of which had a large influence not only on society in general but also on social organisations such as trade unions. For this reason, the Committee of Experts had concluded that the freedom and independence of trade unions was limited by the above-mentioned constitutional provision.

With regard to the question of prior authorisation for the exercise of the right of occupational organisations to hold meetings, the Government representative appeared to have indicated that although in his opinion the interpretation of the Committee of Experts was incorrect, the Order which required such authorisation was going to be amended or repealed. If so this was a cause for satisfaction since this matter had been discussed for a long time without any results.

In the course of his statement, the Government representative had once again mentioned the differences of view among the Committee of Experts. This was proof that each one of the Experts had the right to dissociate himself from the opinion of the Committee of Experts as a whole. In this regard it must be remembered that it was constantly being stated that the Committee of Experts must respect democratic principle. It should also be recalled that one of the fundamental tenets of democracy was the principle of majority, and that for many years the Committee of Experts had maintained a very clear viewpoint on this question. In the discussions that had been held there had been no new elements which might be called fundamental. It must be stressed that in this case the problems in application of the Convention were not secondary, but that for a long time there had been problems concerning crucial points in the application of this fundamental Convention. The Employers' members felt that this situation gave rise to profound and grave concern. The fact that discussions had taken place in a calm manner did not mean that regret should not be expressed at the very serious discrepancies between national law and practice and the Convention.

The Workers' members referred to the discussions of this case in the Committee over several years and the nuances and differences of opinion expressed as to the application of the Convention. A Convention's application should not be interpreted by reference to differences of political economic and social systems but standards should rather be interpreted uniformly. There had been some changes and new developments, but also some problems and difficulties.

Under Article 2 of the Convention, the establishment of a trade union could not be dependent on a law or on government or party authorisation. Interpretation of the present law was a matter for discussion but the absence of other unions and the inability to follow through on some attempts to create other unions (such as SMOT, some leaders of which had recently been released) was a problem. It was hard to believe that these organisations could endanger the government or the State.

There was positive change in the statement regarding trade union autonomy. The Workers' members were categorical that a union should be autonomous in its by-laws, management, functioning and finances. The Committee of Experts had raised the question of article 6 of the USSR Constitution, which laid down the Communist Party's role as the driving and guiding force in Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system, state bodies, and public organisations. The Workers' members were always apprehensive as to the dependency of trade unions. This point should be clarified. It was when trade union unity was compulsory and led to a monopoly that it was contrary to the Convention. The Workers' members also stressed the importance of the information provided by the Government representative and the Worker member of the USSR. There had been some reforms and changes and more were in view which should be drawn to the Committee of Experts' attention and that of the Conference Committee, so that the progress made in overcoming the doubts, contradictions and difficulties referred to could be taken into account. Real trade union freedom and autonomy, they recalled, could also contribute to bringing nations together in peace.

The Government representative commented in reply to the Employers' and Workers' members on three possible obstacles to a complete appreciation of the problems discussed in the Committee. The first was the differences of viewpoint and evaluation between the Committee of Experts on the one hand and the Government and public opinion on the other as to the application of the Convention. The Committee of Experts was not interested in the manner in which the Convention was applied in practice: there were 140 million members of the union movement, dozens of branch trades unions in federations, a huge resource infrastructure, and broad managerial rights in the State and enterprises, and there was democracy within trade unions. There was some movement within the union itself. The Committee of Experts was not the least bit interested in that, much to the Government's disappointment and chagrin. The Government was ready to discuss the experience of the union movement, the implementation of standards which had raised certain problems, unions' by-laws, current developments in the country-but the Committee of Experts was not interested. It was not interested in the day-to-day life of 140 million people-97 per cent of manpower in employment-or the way social rights are applied. The Committee of Experts thought that only one sort of hypothetical situation should be considered as the only matter of importance in relation to the unions and the application of the Convention. It was this failure to understand which was at the heart of the Government's grievance against the supervisory machinery. The Government did not wish to discuss hypothetical situations but real ones.

The second point was that it could not be forgotten that ILO Conventions are applied in very different economic, social and legal systems. The Convention had no direct effect but had up to a point to be transformed into national law-and this was what the relevant legal system did. This implementation depended on many things: economic and social conditions, custom, the development of law in the country, the concepts used in completely diverse social contexts. This was important, since the Committee of Experts started with a preconceived model born of different parentage, in fact.

The third point was the strictly legal question. The evaluation of the 1971 Regulations, with the amendments mentioned by the Worker member of USSR as to union committee rights, and relations between the Party and the trade unions were questions of interpretation. The Committee of Experts had agreed that national legislation could only be interpreted by national bodies, but in its comments it did in fact interpret national legislation. The same applied to the attempt to establish some link between the Party and the trade unions. Such link was not an invention of the socialist system but predated it; it subsists in many countries. The question was how legislation reflects this social reality. Without of respect for their national sovereignty-speaking of what happens in other countries, the Government representative indicated his Government's view that the Soviet Constitution reflects the true state of these relationships and that the interpretation of it made by the Committee of Experts was quite unacceptable.

Finally, he reiterated his Government's willingness to continue its collaboration with the ILO, the Committee of Experts and the present Committee in order to provide information on current economic and social developments and results achieved in trade union matters in particular.

In a brief exchange as to the conclusions to be drawn from the present case, the Workers' members expressed the wish that reference should be made to current developments, which were to be followed. A proposal by the Chair to refer to "restrictions" in regard to the evaluation of the full application of the Convention was supported by the Employers' members; the Workers' members proposed replacing the word "restrictions" with "contradiction". At the request of the Government representative, the word "divergencies" was agreed on.

The Committee took note of the discussion that had taken place and in particular the information, including the new elements, communicated by the Government representative. The Committee recalled that the Committee of Experts had, for many years, been commenting on the system of trade union monopoly, the links between the Communist Party and the trade unions and other matters, including the right of meeting being made subject to previous authorisation. On these matters, the Committee recalled that there had always been a divergency of views regarding the application of the Convention. The Committee welcomed the dialogue that continued to take place with the Experts, and in this Committee, on these questions. The Committee continued to share the view of the Experts that divergencies remain regarding the full application of the Convention. The Committee trusted that the continuing dialogue on all these matters would lead to a further examination of the legislation and the practice in question. It hoped that in any future review of the legislation the Government would take the comments of the Experts fully into account so as to ensure conformity with the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to report on further developments in the situation.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Labour of the Russian Federation (KTR) communicated with the Government’s report, referring to the issues examined by the Committee below, as well as the Government’s reply thereon. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and its affiliate unions, received on 1 September 2025, which allege an effective prohibition of the ITF’s activities and serious restrictions of the activities of its affiliates in the Russian Federation due to the ITF’s designation by the authorities as an “undesirable organization”. In this respect, the Committee notes from the official website of the Office of the Prosecutor General that on 5 September 2023, the ITF was declared “undesirable organization” on grounds that “the ITF activities pose threat to the constitutional order of the Russian Federation”. The Committee further notes the “List of foreign and international organizations whose activities are deemed undesirable in the Russian Federation” published by the Ministry of Justice. The Committee notes therefrom that on 17 January 2024, the Prosecutor General declared IndustriALL Global Union “undesirable organization”. The Committee recalls that international trade union solidarity constitutes one of the fundamental objectives of any trade union movement and underlies the principle laid down in Article 5 of the Convention, that any organization, federation or confederation shall have the right to affiliate with international organizations of workers and employers of their choosing without intervention by the public authorities. This right further implies the right for national trade unions to maintain contact with the international trade union organizations with which they are affiliated, to participate in the activities of these organizations and to benefit from the services and advantages which their membership offers. The Committee urges the Government to provide its comments on the ITF allegations.

Freedom of expression. The Committee previously requested the Government to take steps to ensure that the right of trade unions to express opinions, including those criticizing the Government’s economic and social policies, was duly protected in law and in practice, in light of the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) in Case No. 3313, addressing the dissolution of a trade union after publishing two articles criticizing the State’s policies. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under section 17(2) of the Law on Trade Unions, trade unions have the right to use state mass media in the manner determined by agreements as well as to found mass media in accordance with the federal law. The Committee regrets that no new information is provided by the Government on measures taken to ensure that no trade union can be dissolved for criticizing the Government’s economic and social policies. It therefore reiterates its previous request.

Foreign agents. The Committee also noted, with reference to CFA Case No. 3313, that: (i) under the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations, trade unions receiving funding from foreign sources were required to register as organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent, which entailed additional obligations under sections 24 (inspections) and 32 (restrictions on programme implementation); and (ii) the Code of Administrative Offenses imposed heavy penalties for failing to register as a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent, or for distributing materials without indicating their origin as from such an organization. The Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that the regulation of non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent was compatible with the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations under the Convention. Noting with regret that the Government has not provided information in this respect,the Committee reiterates its previous request.

The Committee also urged the Government to take all necessary steps to exclude trade unions and their organizations from the scope of application of the Law on Control of Activities of Persons Under Foreign Influence. The Committee observes the Government’s assertion that, although trade unions and employers’ associations may indeed be recognized as foreign agents under section 1 of the Law on Control of Activities of Persons Under Foreign Influence, recognition as a foreign agent does not infringe their rights but only entails the assignment of the appropriate status, nor does the inclusion in the register of foreign agents entail a ban on their activities or their liquidation. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that, considering that trade unions and employers’ associations are independent organizations, they have the discretion to determine the degree of their interaction with foreign sources, considering the possibility of incurring obligations under the Law on Control of Activities of Persons Under Foreign Influence. The Committee reiterates that: (i) legislation which seriously hampers activities of a trade union or an employers’ organization on the grounds that they accept financial assistance from an international organization of workers or employers to which they are affiliated infringes the principles concerning the right to affiliate with international organizations; and (ii) it is difficult to reconcile the additional bureaucratic burdens imposed on trade unions receiving financial assistance from abroad, and the various hefty penalties that can be imposed, with the right of trade unions to organize their administration, to freely organize their activities and to formulate their programmes, as well as with the right to benefit from international affiliation. While noting the Government’s indication that, to date, only one trade union is included in the register of foreign agents, and that, ever since the Law on Control of Activities of Persons Under Foreign Influence entered into force, not a single trade union or employers’ association has been recognized as a foreign agent, the Committee recalls the need to ensure the conformity of the legislative provisions with the Convention even if they are not applied in practice. In this regard, the Committee understands that no measures have been taken to ensure compatibility with the Convention of the regulations on non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent. The Committee further notes the Government’s clarification that, apart from establishing a legal definition of a “foreign agent”, the above-mentioned Law also provides for categories of persons who cannot be recognized as foreign agents. The Committee takes note of the KTR’s indication that section 1(3)(5) mentions employers’ associations among such categories. While noting the Government’s repeated indication that the possibility for trade unions, as major public associations with significant influence and political involvement, to receive foreign funding necessitates additional transparency of their activities,the Committee once again urges it to take all necessary steps to exclude trade unions and their organizations from the scope of application of the above-mentioned Law.

The Committee recalls that it urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure full recognition of the right of trade unions to hold public meetings and demonstrations, both in law and in practice, and in particular with respect to the amended Law on Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations, Marches and Pickets. The Committee notes that the Government once again limits itself to indicating that the restrictions on holding public events by foreign agents are justified by state security objectives and therefore cannot be regarded as being directed against the freedom of trade unions. Recalling that the right of trade unions to hold public meetings and demonstrations is an essential aspect of freedom of association, the Committee reiterates its request to the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the full recognition of this right, both in law and in practice.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without distinction whatsoever. The Committee observes that, under section 19(5) of the Law on Public Associations, a person deprived of liberty by a court sentence may not found or participate in a public association. The Committee recalls that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, should have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing to further and defend their interests and rights. The Committee considers that section 19(5) of the Law on Public Associations appears to prohibit persons deprived of their liberty and working under an employment contract in penal institutions from establishing and joining workers’ organizations of their own choosing for the promotion and defence of their occupational interests. The Committee requests the Government to review the Law on Public Associations so as to ensure that persons deprived of their liberty enjoy the right to establish and join workers’ organizations of their own choosing. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all developments in this respect.

Article 3. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities. The Committee had previously requested the Government to identify the categories of the State and municipal civil servants that might fall outside of the narrowly interpreted category of public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and whose right to strike should therefore be guaranteed. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it remains open to consultations with the social partners on possible improvements in the matter and is ready to consider relevant proposals by trade unions submitted in accordance with the established procedure; the Government notes that it has not received any such proposals. The Committee further notes the Government’s assertion that the Law on State Civil Service and the Law on Municipal Service do not contain restrictions for employees regarding their participation in strikes. In this respect, the Committee notes the KTR indication that section 17(1)(15) of the Law on State Civil Service prohibits civil servants from terminating the performance of their official duties in order to settle a service dispute and that a similar prohibition with respect to municipal servants is contained in section 14(1)(14) of the Law on Municipal Service, which amounts to a ban on the right to strike. The Committee reiterates that strikes are essential means available to workers and their organizations to protect their interests, including public servants that do not exercise authority in the name of the State, and notes with regret that no progress has been made in bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention. Welcoming the Government’s stated openness to review the matter in consultation with the social partners, the Committee expects that the Government will take concrete steps to that end. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all developments regarding the review of sections 17(1)(15) and 14(1)(14) of the above-mentioned Laws.

The Committee recalls that for a number of years it has been requesting the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to amend section 26(2) of the Law on Railway Transport so as to ensure the right to strike of railway workers. The Committee notes with deep regret that the Government reiterates that section 413 of the Labour Code provides that the right to strike may be restricted by federal law, and, since temporary work stoppages by certain categories of railway workers may pose a threat to the defence of the country and state security, as well as to human life and health, it is reasonable to restrict their right to strike, which is reinforced by the provisions of the Presidential Decree of 2 July 2021 on the National Security Strategy. In reply to the Committee’s previous observation that a negotiated minimum service could be established for railway workers, the Government provides the list of minimum necessary works (services) during strikes in organizations of public railway transport, set out in section 9 of the Order of the Ministry of Transport of 7 October 2003 No. 197. The Committee understands, however, that this list of minimum necessary works (services) applies to those workers who are not subject to section 26(2) of the Law on Railway Transport and only covers such works (services) as dispatch centralization of the transportation process, maintenance and repair, power supply, protection of public railway transport facilities, etc. Accordingly, the Committee once again recalls that railway transport does not constitute an essential service in the strict sense of the term where strikes can be prohibited and that, instead of a prohibition, a negotiated minimum service could be established in this public service of fundamental importance. The Committee therefore reiterates its previous request.

The Committee notes with deep concern that several international trade union organizations were declared “undesirable” by the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, which allegedly resulted in serious restrictions of the activities of their affiliates in the country. The Committee expresses its deep concern at the apparent refusal by the Government to take steps to exclude trade unions from the scope of application of the Law on Control of Activities of Persons Under Foreign Influence and to ensure that the regulation of non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent is compatible with the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations under the Convention. The Committee notes with deep concern the consequences of application of various legislation and regulation on foreign agents and undesirable organizations on the exercise of freedom of association rights under the Convention. It further deeply regrets the absence of steps taken to ensure that the right of trade unions to express opinions, including those criticizing the Government’s economic and social policies, and the right to hold public meetings and demonstrations are duly protected in law and in practice. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that this case meets the criteria set out in paragraph 67 of its General Report to be asked to come before the Conference.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 114 th Session an d to reply in full to the present comments in 2026 .]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

Freedom of expression. In its previous observation, the Committee noted that the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) drew the Committee’s attention to the legislative aspects of Case No. 3313 [see 396th Report, October 2021, paragraphs 529–595] with regard to a situation where a union’s publications criticizing the State’s policy were declared as being contrary to the law and the union’s statutes, and requested the Government to indicate all steps taken to ensure that the right of trade unions to express opinions was duly protected. The Committee notes that the Government states that no legislative provisions prevent trade unions from expressing disagreement with state authorities on matters of economic and social policy, and that trade unions fully exercise this right, as evidenced by the debates taking place within the Russian Tripartite Commission for the regulation of social and labour issues (RTK). The Committee observes however that in Case No. 3313, the CFA noted that judicial decisions determined that the publication of two articles criticizing the State’s policies was incompatible with trade union activities as defined by the law and ordered the dissolution of the trade union which had issued them. The Committee reiterates its request that the Government take all steps to ensure that the right of trade unions to express opinions, including those criticizing the Government’s economic and social policies, is duly protected in law and in practice. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on all steps taken in this regard.

Foreign agents. The Committee also noted, with reference to CFA Case No. 3313, that: (i) under the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations, trade unions receiving funding from foreign sources were required to register as organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent, which entailed additional obligations under sections 24 (inspections) and 32 (restrictions on programme implementation); and (ii) the Code of Administrative Offenses imposed heavy penalties for failing to register as a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent, or for distributing materials without indicating their origin as from such an organization. The Committee urged the Government to find an appropriate solution to ensure that the regulations on these organizations were compatible with the rights of trade unions and employers’ organizations under the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the possibility for trade unions, as major public associations with significant influence and political involvement, to receive foreign funding has led to the imposition of restrictions due to their lack of oversight by and accountability to public authorities; (ii) trade union members and society in general have a right to know about overseas funding; and (iii) since the complaint was filed in Case No. 3313, no trade union has been designated as a foreign agent. In this regard, the Committee recalls once again that legislation which seriously hampers activities of a trade union or an employers’ organization on the grounds that they accept financial assistance from an international organization of workers or employers to which they are affiliated infringes the principles concerning the right to affiliate with international organizations. In this regard, the Committee has considered that it is difficult to reconcile the additional bureaucratic burdens imposed on trade unions receiving financial assistance from abroad, and the various hefty penalties that can be imposed, with the right of trade unions to organize their administration, to freely organize their activities and to formulate their programmes, as well as with the right to benefit from international affiliation. Taking due note of the Government’s indication that no trade union has been classified as a foreign agent since 2018, the Committee also recalls the need to ensure the conformity of the legislative provisions with the Convention, even if they are not applied in practice. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that the regulations on non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent are compatible with the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations under the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken in this regard.

The Committee previously noted with utmost concern the entry into force in December 2022 of the Law on Control of Activities of Persons Under Foreign Influence, which defined foreign influence as a support (financial and/or other) provided by, among others, international and foreign organizations, and stipulated that non-compliance with the requirements of the law, which were more stringent than those described above, entailed dissolution. The Committee urged the Government to exclude trade unions and their organizations from the scope of the new Law. Noting with regret that the Government does not address this matter in its report, the Committee once again urges it to take all necessary steps to exclude trade unions and their organizations from the scope of application of the above-mentioned Law. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all developments in this regard.

The Committee also noted with deep concern that the entry into force of the Law on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation, which amended the Federal Law No. 54-FZ on Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations, Marches and Pickets, not only restricted areas where a public event could take place to the extent that the organization of demonstrations, marches, or pickets could become virtually impossible, but also forbade the organization of such events by foreign agents. It requested the Government to provide information on these developments. The Committee notes that the Government limits itself to stating that the restrictions on the right of foreign agents to organize public events are based on national security considerations. Recalling that the right of trade unions to hold public meetings and demonstrations is an essential aspect of freedom of association, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the full recognition of this right, both in law and in practice, and in particular with respect to the amended Federal Law No. 54-FZ. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all progress made in this regard.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to review, in consultation with the social partners, various categories of the State and municipal civil service with a view to identifying those that may fall outside of the narrowly interpreted category of public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and whose right to strike should therefore be guaranteed. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it was ready to consult with the social partners on possible improvements and consider any draft legislation proposed by them, but none was submitted, and that on the basis of section 21 of the Labour Code, federal civil servants and workers are allowed to associate and join trade unions in order to represent and protect their rights and interests. In this regard, the Committee recalls that strikes are essential means available to workers and their organizations to protect their interests, and that too broad a definition of the concept of civil servant may result in a very wide restriction or even a prohibition of the right to strike for these workers. The Committee once again reiterates its request and firmly expects that the above-mentioned review will be conducted shortly and will identify the categories of the State and municipal civil servants that may fall outside of the narrowly interpreted category of public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and whose right to strike should therefore be guaranteed. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all progress made in this regard.

The Committee also previously requested the Government to amend section 26(2) of the Law on Federal Rail Transport so as to ensure the right to strike of railway workers. The Committee notes with regret that the Government merely reiterates that section 413 of the Labour Code provides that the right to strike may be restricted by federal law, and since temporary work stoppages by certain categories of railway workers may pose a threat to the defence of the country and state security, as well as human life and health, it is reasonable to restrict their right to strike. The Committee recalls once more that railway transport does not constitute an essential service in the strict sense of the term where strikes can be prohibited and that instead, a negotiated minimum service could be established in this public service of fundamental importance. The Committee once again reiterates its request and firmly expects the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to amend section 26(2) of the Law on Federal Rail Transport in order to bring it into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

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

Previous comment

The Committee recalls that it had requested the Government to reply to its previous comment as set out below, in 2023. The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report was submitted too late after the deadline of 1 September to ensure its translation. The Committee will examine the information provided by the Government at its next meeting.

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Labour of the Russian Federation (KTR), communicated with the Government’s report and referring to the issues raised by the Committee below, as well as the Government’s reply thereon.

The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) drew to its attention the legislative aspects of Case No. 3313 [see 396th Report, October 2021, paragraphs 529–595]. The Committee notes, in particular, the conclusions and recommendations of the CFA with regard to: (1) the right of trade unions to express opinions and (2) the application to trade unions of the legislative provisions regulating non-commercial organizations performing functions of a foreign agent.

Freedom of expression. With regard to a situation where a union’s publications criticizing the State’s policy were declared as being contrary to the law and the union’s statutes, the CFA recalled that the right to express opinions through the press or otherwise is an essential aspect of trade union rights and the full exercise of trade union rights calls for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas within the limits of propriety and non-violence. The CFA further recalled that freedom of expression which should be enjoyed by trade unions and their leaders should also be guaranteed when they wish to criticize the government’s economic and social policy. The CFA requested the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the right of trade unions to express opinions, including those criticizing the Government’s economic and social policies is duly protected in law and in practice. The Committee requests the Government to indicate all steps taken in this respect.

Foreign agents. Furthermore, and with reference to Case No. 3313, this Committee notes that by virtue of the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations, trade unions must register as organizations performing the functions of a “foreign agent” if they receive funding from foreign sources and that such status entails certain additional obligations imposed on a trade union under sections 24 and 32 of the Law. The Committee further notes that section 32 provides for scheduled (once a year) and unscheduled inspections of non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent. The Committee notes that the reasons for unscheduled inspections include the receipt of information from the state authorities, local self-government authorities, citizens or organizations on: (i) a violation of law or its own by-laws by a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent; (ii) non-registration as a foreign agent; and (iii) participation in events carried out by a foreign or international non-governmental organization whose activities have been declared undesirable on the territory of the Russian Federation. If during an investigation it appears necessary to obtain documents and/or information through inter-agency information exchange, to undertake complex and/or lengthy research or special expert analyses and investigations, the time limit for carrying out the investigation may be extended to 45 working days. The Committee considers that legislation which seriously hampers activities of a trade union or an employers’ organization on the grounds that they accept financial assistance from an international organization of workers or employers to which they are affiliated infringes the principles concerning the right to affiliate with international organizations. The Committee also notes that pursuant to section 32 of the Law, an authorized body can prohibit a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent from implementing a programme (or part thereof). Failure to execute that decision entails the liquidation of the organization by a court. The Committee notes heavy penalties set out by the Code of Administrative Offenses in connection to the failure to register as a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent, and also for production or distribution of materials (including through the mass media and/or the Internet), without indicating that these materials were produced, distributed or sent by a non-commercial organization acting as a foreign agent. In light of the above, the Committee, like the CFA, considers that it is difficult to reconcile the additional bureaucratic burdens imposed on trade unions receiving financial assistance from abroad (including from an international trade union to which they are affiliated), as well as various hefty penalties that can be imposed on the organizations, their leaders and members, with the right of trade unions to organize their administration, to freely organize their activities and to formulate their programmes as well as with the right to benefit from international affiliation. The Committee recalls that the control exercised by the public authorities over trade union finances should not normally exceed the obligation to submit periodic reports. The discretionary right of the authorities to carry out inspections and request information at any time entails a serious danger of interference in the internal administration of trade unions. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary steps to find an appropriate solution through social dialogue in order to ensure that the regulations on non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent are compatible with the rights of trade unions, and employers’ organizations, under the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken in this respect.

The Committee notes with utmost concern, from the Kremlin website (www.kremlin.ru), the entry into force, on 1 December 2022, of the Law on Control of Activities of Persons Under Foreign Influence. The Committee notes that pursuant to the new legislation, foreign influence is defined as a support (financial and/or other) provided by, among others, international and foreign organizations, and that non-compliance with the requirements of the law, which are now more stringent than those described above, entails a dissolution of the organization in question. The Committee notes that while employers’ organizations are explicitly excluded from its scope, trade unions are not. The Committee urges the Government to take all necessary steps to exclude trade unions and their organizations from the scope of application of the new Law and to inform the Committee of all measures taken in this respect.

The Committee notes, from the Official Internet Portal of Legal Information, the entry into force, on 5 December 2022, of the related legislation, the Law on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation, which amends, among several other pieces of legislation, Federal Law No. 54-FZ of 19 June 2004 (as amended on 30 December 2020) on Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations, Marches and Pickets. The Committee notes with deep concern that the amendment not only restricts areas where a public event can take place to the extent that the organization of demonstrations, marches, pickets might become virtually impossible, but also forbids the organization of such events by foreign agents. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on these developments.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities. The Committee had previously invited the Government to review, in consultation with the social partners, various categories of the State and municipal civil service with a view to identifying those that may fall outside of the narrowly interpreted category of public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its explanation on the classification of civil service positions in the national legislation set out in section 9 of the Law on State Civil Servants, and indicates that all civil servants covered by that legislation exercise authority in the name of the State. The Committee notes that the KTR reiterates its opinion that far from all civil servants covered by the Law are “officials exercising authority in the name of the State”. The Committee questions to what extent “support specialists” (clerical, documentation, IT, accounting, specialists etc.), for example, exercise authority in the name of the State. The Committee recalls that too broad a definition of the concept of civil servant may result in a very wide restriction or even a prohibition of the right to strike for these workers. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that it is prepared to conduct, where necessary, consultations with social partners regarding possible improvements. The Committee reiterates its request and expects the Government to inform it of the outcome of the review, in consultation with the social partners, of various categories of the State and municipal civil service with a view to identifying those that may fall outside of this narrowly interpreted category and whose right to strike should be guaranteed.

With regard to its previous request to take the necessary measures to amend section 26(2) of the Law on Federal Rail Transport so as to ensure the right to strike of railway workers, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it believes there is no need to amend the legislation on the rail transport, as section 413 of the Labour Code provides that the right to strike may be restricted by federal law. The Government indicates that temporary work stoppages by certain categories of railway workers may pose a threat to the defence of the country and state security, as well as human life and health, and it is therefore reasonable to restrict their right to strike. The Committee reiterates that railway transport does not constitute an essential service in the strict sense of the term where strikes can be prohibited and that instead, a negotiated minimum service could be established in this public service of fundamental importance. The Committee reiterates its previous request and expects the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to amend section 26(2) of the Law on Federal Rail Transport so as to bring it into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee again requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the observations of the Confederation of Labour of the Russian Federation (KTR), communicated with the Government’s report and referring to the issues raised by the Committee below, as well as the Government’s reply thereon.

The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) drew to its attention the legislative aspects of Case No. 3313 [see 396th Report, October 2021, paragraphs 529–595]. The Committee notes, in particular, the conclusions and recommendations of the CFA with regard to: (1) the right of trade unions to express opinions and (2) the application to trade unions of the legislative provisions regulating non-commercial organizations performing functions of a foreign agent.

Freedom of expression. With regard to a situation where a union’s publications criticizing the State’s policy were declared as being contrary to the law and the union’s statutes, the CFA recalled that the right to express opinions through the press or otherwise is an essential aspect of trade union rights and the full exercise of trade union rights calls for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas within the limits of propriety and non-violence. The CFA further recalled that freedom of expression which should be enjoyed by trade unions and their leaders should also be guaranteed when they wish to criticize the government’s economic and social policy. The CFA requested the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the right of trade unions to express opinions, including those criticizing the Government’s economic and social policies is duly protected in law and in practice. The Committee requests the Government to indicate all steps taken in this respect.

Foreign agents. Furthermore, and with reference to Case No. 3313, this Committee notes that by virtue of the Law on Non-Commercial Organizations, trade unions must register as organizations performing the functions of a “foreign agent” if they receive funding from foreign sources and that such status entails certain additional obligations imposed on a trade union under sections 24 and 32 of the Law. The Committee further notes that section 32 provides for scheduled (once a year) and unscheduled inspections of non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent. The Committee notes that the reasons for unscheduled inspections include the receipt of information from the state authorities, local self-government authorities, citizens or organizations on (i) a violation of law or its own by-laws by a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent; (ii) non-registration as a foreign agent; and (iii) participation in events carried out by a foreign or international non-governmental organization whose activities have been declared undesirable on the territory of the Russian Federation. If during an investigation it appears necessary to obtain documents and/or information through inter-agency information exchange, to undertake complex and/or lengthy research or special expert analyses and investigations, the time limit for carrying out the investigation may be extended to 45 working days. The Committee considers that legislation which seriously hampers activities of a trade union or an employers’ organization on the grounds that they accept financial assistance from an international organization of workers or employers to which they are affiliated infringes the principles concerning the right to affiliate with international organizations. The Committee also notes that pursuant to section 32 of the Law, an authorized body can prohibit a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent from implementing a programme (or part thereof). Failure to execute that decision entails the liquidation of the organization by a court. The Committee notes heavy penalties set out by the Code of Administrative Offenses in connection to the failure to register as a non-commercial organization performing the functions of a foreign agent, and also for production or distribution of materials (including through the mass media and/or the Internet), without indicating that these materials were produced, distributed or sent by a non-commercial organization acting as a foreign agent. In light of the above, the Committee, like the CFA, considers that it is difficult to reconcile the additional bureaucratic burdens imposed on trade unions receiving financial assistance from abroad (including from an international trade union to which they are affiliated), as well as various hefty penalties that can be imposed on the organizations, their leaders and members, with the right of trade unions to organize their administration, to freely organize their activities and to formulate their programmes as well as with the right to benefit from international affiliation. The Committee recalls that the control exercised by the public authorities over trade union finances should not normally exceed the obligation to submit periodic reports. The discretionary right of the authorities to carry out inspections and request information at any time entails a serious danger of interference in the internal administration of trade unions. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary steps to find an appropriate solution through social dialogue in order to ensure that the regulations on non-commercial organizations performing the functions of a foreign agent are compatible with the rights of trade unions, and employers’ organizations, under the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on all measures taken in this respect.

The Committee notes with utmost concern, from the Kremlin website (www.kremlin.ru), the entry into force, on 1 December 2022, of the Law on Control of Activities of Persons Under Foreign Influence. The Committee notes that pursuant to the new legislation, foreign influence is defined as a support (financial and/or other) provided by, among others, international and foreign organizations, and that non-compliance with the requirements of the law, which are now more stringent than those described above, entails a dissolution of the organization in question. The Committee notes that while employers’ organizations are explicitly excluded from its scope, trade unions are not. The Committee urges the Government to take all necessary steps to exclude trade unions and their organizations from the scope of application of the new Law and to inform the Committee of all measures taken in this respect.

The Committee notes, from the Official Internet Portal of Legal Information, the entry into force, on 5 December 2022, of the related legislation, the Law on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation, which amends, among several other pieces of legislation, Federal Law No. 54-FZ of 19 June 2004 (as amended on 30 December 2020) on Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations, Marches and Pickets. The Committee notes with deep concern that the amendment not only restricts areas where a public event can take place to the extent that the organization of demonstrations, marches, pickets might become virtually impossible, but also forbids the organization of such events by foreign agents. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on these developments.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities. The Committee had previously invited the Government to review, in consultation with the social partners, various categories of the State and municipal civil service with a view to identifying those that may fall outside of the narrowly interpreted category of public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its explanation on the classification of civil service positions in the national legislation set out in section 9 of the Law on State Civil Servants, and indicates that all civil servants covered by that legislation exercise authority in the name of the State. The Committee notes that the KTR reiterates its opinion that far from all civil servants covered by the Law are “officials exercising authority in the name of the State”. The Committee questions to what extent “support specialists” (clerical, documentation, IT, accounting, etc. specialists), for example, exercise authority in the name of the State. The Committee recalls that too broad a definition of the concept of civil servant may result in a very wide restriction or even a prohibition of the right to strike for these workers. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that it is prepared to conduct, where necessary, consultations with social partners regarding possible improvements. The Committee reiterates its request and expects the Government to inform it of the outcome of thereview, in consultation with the social partners, of various categories of the State and municipal civil service with a view to identifying those that may fall outside of this narrowly interpreted category and whose right to strike should be guaranteed.

With regard to its previous request to take the necessary measures to amend section 26(2) of the Law on Federal Rail Transport so as to ensure the right to strike of railway workers, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it believes there is no need to amend the legislation on the rail transport, as section 413 of the Labour Code provides that the right to strike may be restricted by federal law. The Government indicates that temporary work stoppages by certain categories of railway workers may pose a threat to the defence of the country and state security, as well as human life and health, and it is therefore reasonable to restrict their right to strike. The Committee reiterates that railway transport does not constitute an essential service in the strict sense of the term where strikes can be prohibited and that instead, a negotiated minimum service could be established in this public service of fundamental importance. The Committee reiterates its previous request and expects the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to amend section 26(2) of the Law on Federal Rail Transport so as to bring it into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee again requests the Government to provide information on measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2023.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee notes the detailed response of the Government to the 2015 observations made by the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR) as well as to the KTR observations communicated with the Government’s report.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to ensure that workers of municipal services as well as civil servants who did not exercise authority in the name of the State could exercise the right to strike. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation of the system of the civil service in the Russian Federation. The Government refers, in particular, to section 3(1) of the Law on State Civil Servants, which defines State Civil Service as a type of service carried out by citizens at their respective governmental positions aimed at executing the authority of various State bodies. Therefore, the prohibition of strikes in the civil service is necessary due to its specific functions, which should be uninterrupted to guarantee the exercise of the authority of various state bodies. The Government points out that this prohibition affects civil servants irrespective of the specific level and category of their position as all civil servants contribute individually and collectively towards the public aim of the civil service, through which the authority of the State is exercised. Likewise, the legislation prohibits the exercise of the right to strike by municipal civil servants, who exercise authority in the name of municipal bodies. While taking due note of this information, the Committee recalls the KTR’s previous indication that section 9 of the Law on State Civil Service divides the duties of the civil service into four categories and that far from all civil servants covered by the Law are “officials exercising authority in the name of the State”. Recalling that the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, the Committee invites the Government to review, in consultation with the social partners, various categories of the State and municipal civil service with a view to identifying those that may fall outside of this narrowly interpreted category.

With regard to its previous request to amend section 26(2) of the Law on Federal Rail Transport (2003) so as to ensure the right to strike of railway workers, the Committee notes that the Government reiterates the prohibition imposed by the legislation on workers in railway services engaged in the public railway sector and cargo. The Committee recalls that railway transport does not constitute an essential service in the strict sense of the term where strikes can be prohibited and that instead, a negotiated minimum service could be established in this public service of fundamental importance. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 26(2) of the Law on Federal Rail Transport so as to bring it into line with the Convention. It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the response of the Government on the 2012 observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). The Committee also notes the observations made by the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR) received on 1 September 2015 alleging legislative restrictions imposed on the right to strike, addressed by the Committee below, and the Government’s comments thereon. The KTR also alleges that the existing mechanisms to protect trade union rights are ineffective. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect. The Committee further notes the 2013 and 2015 observations made by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), which are of a general nature.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to ensure that workers of municipal services as well as civil servants who did not exercise authority in the name of the State could exercise the right to strike. In this regard, the Committee notes that the 1998 Federal Municipal Service Act was repealed by Law No. 25-FZ of 2 March 2007 on Municipal Service in the Russian Federation, which contains, in its section 14 1. 14), the prohibition imposed on employees to stop their duties as a means of resolving a labour dispute. The Committee further recalls that a similar prohibition is contained in section 17 (1) 15) of the Law on State Civil Service (2004). The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that the prohibition of strikes for civil servants is compensated by the existence of impartial individual service dispute bodies to address unresolved differences between the employer and civil servants. The Committee notes the KTR’s indication that section 9 of the Law on State Civil Service divides the duties of the civil service into four categories, that far from all civil servants covered by the Law are “officials exercising authority in the name of the State”, and that the Law imposes the prohibition on strikes irrespective of the specific category of the public service. The Committee once again recalls that the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 14 1. 14) of the Law on Municipal Service and section 17 1. 15) of the Law on State Civil Service so as to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention and to indicate all measures taken in this respect.

With regard to its previous request to amend the legislation so as to ensure the right to strike of railway workers, the Committee notes that the Government refers to section 413(b) of the Labour Code, according to which, strikes are unlawful in a number of services, including air, water and rail transport, as well as communications, only if a strike action would endanger the defence of the country, the security of the State or people’s lives and health. The Committee notes, however, that pursuant to the same section, the right to strike can be restricted by a federal law and in this respect, further notes that pursuant to section 26(2) of the Law on Federal Rail Transport (2003), strikes are forbidden in the railway transport. The Committee recalls that railway transport does not constitute an essential service in the strict sense of the term where strikes can be prohibited and that instead, a negotiated minimum service could be established in this public service of fundamental importance. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 26(2) of the Law on Federal Rail Transport (2003) so as to bring it into line with the Convention, as well as with section 413(b) of the Labour Code. It requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Article 3 of the Convention. Minimum services. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to amend section 412 of the Labour Code, so as to ensure that any disagreement concerning minimum services in organizations responsible for safety, health and life of people and vital interests of society, where minimum services must be ensured during a strike, is settled not by the executive body but by an independent body having the confidence of all parties to the dispute. The Committee notes that in its 2011 report, the Government indicates that a body of executive power of the Russian Federation is entitled to define minimum services, but its decision may be appealed by the parties to the collective labour dispute to the court. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the average duration of the dispute resolution procedure before the relevant bodies of the executive power and the courts, in case of an appeal, in relation to minimum services.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to provide its observations on the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the Russian Labour Confederation (KTR) and the Seafarers’ Union of Russia (RPSM) alleging numerous violations of trade union rights in practice, including the denial of legal personality trade unions, interference by the authorities in internal trade union affairs, harassment of trade union leaders, and restrictions on the rights to strike. The Committee notes the Government’s reply thereon. The Committee notes that an ILO mission visited the country in October 2011 in order to discuss similar issues pending before the Committee on Freedom of Association with all interested parties.

The Committee notes the comments made by the ITUC in a communication dated 31 July 2012 alleging numerous violations of trade union rights in practice, including denial of registration of trade unions, dissolution of a migrant workers’ union upon a court’s order and restrictions on the right to strike. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report for the current reporting cycle has not been received, however, it observes that the Labour Code has been amended.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities. Labour Code. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to amend section 410 of the Labour Code so as to repeal the obligation to indicate the duration of a strike in order to allow trade unions to declare strikes of unlimited duration. The Committee notes with interest that this provision has been amended so as to repeal this obligation.

Other legislation. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to ensure that workers of postal services, municipal services and railways can exercise the right to strike and, to that effect, amend section 9 of the 1994 Federal Postal Service Act, section 11(1)(10) of the 1998 Federal Municipal Services Act and section 26 of the 2003 Federal Rail Transport Act. Furthermore, noting that the 2004 Law on State Civil Service prohibits civil servants from stopping their duties to solve a labour dispute, it also requested the Government to amend the relevant legislative provisions so as to ensure that public servants who do not exercise authority in the name of the State could exercise the right to strike. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that the right to strike of the following categories of workers is restricted: workers of the federal courier communications and the municipal employees, as well as certain categories of railway workers. The Government considers that the restrictions imposed on the right to strike of certain categories of workers do not contradict international standards. It refers in this respect to Article 8(2) and (1)(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and points out that, under these provisions, a State may impose prohibition on the exercise of the right to strike by members of the armed forces, the police, or the administration of the State, as well as other persons, if necessary, in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public order, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The Government stresses that nothing in this Article shall authorize States parties to Convention No. 87 to take legislative measures which would prejudice, or apply the law in such a manner as would prejudice, the guarantees provided for in that Convention. The Committee once again recalls its basic position that the right to strike is an intrinsic corollary of the right to organize protected by Convention No. 87. It further recalls that, in addition to the armed forces and the police (members of which could be excluded from the application of the Convention), the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and in essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee considers that railway services and postal services do not constitute essential services. The Committee therefore requests once again the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the abovementioned legislative acts so as to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention and ensure that workers of the federal courier communications, railway workers, municipal employees, as well as public servants who do not exercise authority in the name of the State, can exercise the right to strike. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report all measures taken in this respect.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to provide its observations on the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) alleging numerous violations of trade union rights in practice, including denial of registration of trade unions, interference by the authorities in internal trade union affairs, harassment of trade union leaders, and restrictions on the rights to strike, as well as the comments submitted by the Russian Labour Confederation (KTR) and the Seafarers’ Union of Russia (RPSM) in a communication dated 16 December 2009. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments of the ITUC, which it will examine in the framework of the regular reporting cycle. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments made by the KTR and RPSM.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to make a number of amendments to the Labour Code so as to lift the restrictions on the right to strike. In particular, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 410 of the Labour Code, so as to repeal the obligation to indicate the duration of a strike, so as to allow trade unions to declare strikes of unlimited duration. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 410 does not specify the time and maximum duration of a strike, but the decision to declare a strike should indicate its expected length. The Government further indicates that, in order to protect the interests of the population, the legislation does not provide for strikes of unlimited duration. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the procedure for the extension of duration of an ongoing strike.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 24 August 2010 alleging numerous violations of trade union rights in practice, including denial of registration of trade unions, interference by the authorities in internal trade union affairs, harassment of trade union leaders, and restrictions on the rights to strike. The Committee recalls that in its previous observations it had also noted communications submitted by the ITUC containing similar allegations. The Committee further notes the comments submitted by the Russian Labour Confederation and the Seafarers’ Union of Russia in a communication dated 16 December 2009. The Committee notes with regret that the Government once again did not provide observations on the comments submitted by the ITUC or other workers’ organizations. The Committee strongly urges the Government to provide its observations thereon, as well as on the previous comments of the ITUC.

Article 3 of the Convention. Right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities. Right to strike. Labour Code. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to amend section 412 of the Labour Code, so as to ensure that any disagreement concerning minimum services in organizations responsible for safety, health and life of people and vital interests of society, where the minimum services must be ensured during a strike, is settled not by the executive body but by an independent body having the confidence of all parties to the dispute. The Committee notes that while the Government confirms that a body of executive power of the Russian Federation is entitled to define minimum services, it indicates that such a decision may be appealed by the parties to the collective labour dispute to the court. The Committee considers that since the system of minimum services restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities. It would be highly desirable for negotiations on the definition and organization of the minimum service not to be held during a labour dispute, so that all parties can examine the matter with the necessary objectivity and detachment. The parties might also envisage the establishment of a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service, and empowered to issue enforceable decisions (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 161). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to amend section 412 of the Labour Code so as to ensure that any disagreement concerning minimum services is settled not by the executive body but by an independent body having the confidence of all the parties to the dispute.

The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to amend section 413 of the Labour Code so as to ensure that when a strike is prohibited, any disagreement concerning a collective dispute is settled by an independent body and not by the Government. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s explanation that it is entitled to stop a strike in services of a vital interest until the issue is solved by the court under this section, but this injunction may not last longer than ten days.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Health and Social Development together with the social partners are elaborating the Concept of the Social Partnership Development and that within the framework of this exercise, it is envisaged to address the issues related to the provisions of the Labour Code and other rules and regulations regarding the organization and conduct of strikes, to establish an efficient mechanism for solving labour collective disputes and to improve the labour legislation taking into account the comments of the ILO supervisory bodies. The Government further indicates that the permanent tripartite working group of the State Duma Committee on Labour and Social Policy has resumed its work with a view to study the legal practice and prepare proposals aimed at improving labour legislation. This working group intends to consider proposals of the social partners on the Labour Code amendments. In this respect, the Committee notes the comments submitted by the Russian Labour Confederation and the Seafarers’ Union of Russia alleging that the work on amending the Labour Code pursuant to the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies was not moving forward. The Committee hopes that the work of the abovementioned working group will result in the near future in a legislative reform that will take into account the abovementioned comments and requests the Government to provide information on any further developments in this respect. The Committee once again reminds the Government that it can avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

Other legislation. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to ensure that workers of postal services, municipal services and railways can exercise the right to strike and, to that effect, amend section 9 of the 1994 Federal Postal Service Act, section 11(1(10)) of the 1998 Federal Municipal Services Act and section 26 of the 2003 Federal Rail Transport Act. It further requested the Government to indicate whether there are any legislative restrictions imposed on the right to strike of civil servants other than civil servants exercising authority in the name of the State. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the right to strike of the following categories of workers is restricted: workers of the federal courier communications and the municipal employees, as well as certain categories of railway workers. The Government further indicates that the Law on State Civil Service of the Russian Federation of 2004 prohibits civil servants from stopping their duties to solve a labour dispute. The Committee notes that the Government considers that the restrictions imposed on the right to strike of certain categories of workers do not contradict international standards and indicates that workers whose right to strike is restricted have the possibility of using other means of solving collective labour disputes, such as mediation procedure or applying to the Government. The Government refers, in particular, to Article 8(2) and (3) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and points out that under these provisions, a State may impose prohibition on the exercise of the right to strike by members of the armed forces, of the police, or of the administration of the State, but that nothing in this Article shall authorize States parties to Convention No. 87 to take legislative measures which would prejudice, or apply the law in such a manner as would prejudice, the guarantees provided for in that Convention. The Committee recalls its basic position that the right to strike is an intrinsic corollary of the right to organize protected by Convention No. 87. It further recalls that in addition to the armed forces and the police (members of which could be excluded from the application of the Convention), the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and in essential services in the strict sense of the term, i.e. services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee considers that railway services and postal services do not constitute essential services. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to amend the abovementioned legislative acts so as to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention and ensure that workers of the federal courier communications, railway workers, municipal employees, as well as public servants who do not exercise authority in the name of the State, can exercise the right to strike. It requests the Government to indicate in its next report all measures taken in this respect.

The Committee had previously requested the Government to specify the categories of workers employed in the internal affairs agencies who are prohibited from striking. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication that members of the police, holding the rank and file or command posts, are prohibited from stopping their duties in order to solve a labour dispute.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 29 August 2008 alleging assault on a trade union activist and numerous violations of the right to strike. It requests the Government to provide its observations thereon, as well as on the 2006 comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now ITUC), also concerning restrictions imposed on the right to strike and the alleged violation of trade union rights in practice.

The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to:

–           amend section 410 of the Labour Code, so as to repeal the obligation to indicate the duration of a strike, so as to allow trade unions to declare strikes of unlimited duration;

–           amend section 412 of the Labour Code, so as to ensure that any disagreement concerning minimum services in organizations responsible for safety, health and life of people and vital interests of society, where the minimum services must be ensured during a strike, is settled by an independent body having the confidence of all parties to the dispute and not the executive body;

–           amend section 413 of the Labour Code, so as to ensure that, when a strike is prohibited, any disagreement concerning a collective dispute is settled by an independent body and not by the Government;

–           to ensure that workers of postal services, municipal services and railways can exercise the right to strike and, to that effect, amend section 9 of the 1994 Federal Postal Service Act, section 11(1(10)) of the 1998 Federal Municipal Services Act and section 26 of the 2003 Federal Rail Transport Act;

–           to indicate whether there are any legislative restrictions imposed on the right to strike of civil servants other than civil servants exercising authority in the name of the State; and

–           to specify the categories of workers employed in the internal affairs agencies prohibited from striking.

The Committee recalls that it had previously noted the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Health and Social Development, together with the federal government authorities concerned and the social partners, had engaged in work to amend specific legislative acts so as to bring them into conformity with the recommendations of the ILO. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that a working group involving most representative social partners was created to that effect in 2008.

The Committee hopes that the work of the abovementioned working group will result in the near future in a legislative reform that will take into account its previous comments and requests the Government to provide information on any further developments in this respect. The Committee reminds the Government that it can avail itself of the technical cooperation of the Office if it so wishes.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government, trade unions (their associations) established in the internal affairs agencies are prohibited from striking. The Committee requests the Government to specify the categories of workers this prohibition covers.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report. The Committee regrets that the Government failed to provide its observations on the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU, now ITUC – International Trade Union Confederation) concerning restrictions imposed on the right to strike and the alleged violation of trade union rights in practice. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

In its previous observation, the Committee had noted that the Labour Code was amended in 2006 and that several of its previous recommendations were not reflected in the amended Code. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to modify the following sections of the Labour Code so as to bring it into conformity with Article 3 of the Convention:

–      section 410 of the Labour Code, so as to repeal the obligation to indicate the duration of a strike;

–      section 412 of the Labour Code, so as to ensure that any disagreement concerning minimum services in organizations responsible for safety, health and life of people and vital interests of society, where the minimum services must be ensured during a strike, is settled by an independent body having the confidence of all parties to the dispute and not the executive body;

–      section 413 of the Labour Code, so as to ensure that, when a strike is prohibited, any disagreement concerning a collective dispute is settled by an independent body and not by the Government.

The Committee further notes from the Government’s report that the right to strike is restricted or prohibited in the following services: postal services (section 9 of the Federal Postal Service Act of 17 December 1994), municipal services (section 11(1(10)) of the Federal Municipal Services Act of 8 January 1998) and railways (section 26 of the Federal Rail Transport Act of 10 January 2003), which the Committee does not consider essential, i.e. those services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population and in which restrictions and even prohibition may be justified. The Committee is of the opinion that in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes, the authorities could establish a system of minimum service in other services which are of public utility rather than impose an outright ban on strikes, which should be limited to essential services in the strict sense of the term. In the view of the Committee, such a service should meet at least two requirements. Firstly, and this aspect is paramount, it must genuinely and exclusively be a minimum service, that is one which is limited to the operations which are strictly necessary to meet the basic needs of the population or the minimum requirements of the service, while maintaining the effectiveness of the pressure brought to bear. Secondly, since this system restricts one of the essential means of pressure available to workers to defend their economic and social interests, their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining such a service, along with employers and the public authorities. It would be highly desirable for negotiations on the definition and organization of the minimum service not to be held during a labour dispute, so that all parties can examine the matter with the necessary objectivity and detachment. The parties might also envisage the establishment of a joint or independent body responsible for examining rapidly and without formalities the difficulties raised by the definition and application of such a minimum service and empowered to issue enforceable decisions (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 160–161). The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend its legislation so as to take into account the abovementioned principle.

The Committee notes that no information was provided by the Government in respect of the right to strike of public servants not exercising authority in the name of the State (previously prohibited by section 11 of the Law on fundamentals of state employment). In this regard, the Committee notes that the Law on civil service of 27 July 2004 repealed the Law on fundamentals of state employment. While the new law does not seem to expressly prohibit the right to strike in civil service, the Committee notes that section 18(6) stipulates that “civil servants must observe restrictions imposed on civil servants by the legislation”. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether there are any legislative restrictions imposed on the right to strike of civil servants other than civil servants exercising authority in the name of the State.

Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Health and Social Development, together with the federal government authorities concerned and the social partners, was currently engaged in work to amend specific legislative acts so as to bring them into conformity with the recommendations of the ILO. The Committee hopes that further legislative reform will take into account its previous comments and requests the Government to keep it informed of any further developments in this respect.

The Committee is addressing a request concerning other matters directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It further notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 2216 and 2251, which referred the legislative aspects of theses cases to the Committee of Experts (see 340th Report, March 2006).

The Committee notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) dated 10 August 2006, which concern restrictions imposed on the right to strike and the alleged violation of trade union rights afforded by the Convention in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

The Committee recalls that in its previous observations it had requested the Government to ensure that the drafted amendments to the Labour Code take into account the Committee’s previous requests to modify the following sections of the Labour Code or other legislative texts so as to bring them into conformity with Article 3 of the Convention:

–         section 410 of the Labour Code (providing that a minimum of two-thirds of the total number of workers of an enterprise should be present at the meeting and that the decision to stage a strike should be taken by at least half of the delegates present), so as to lower the quorum for a strike ballot, which the Committee considered too high and likely to impede recourse to industrial action, particularly in large enterprises;

–         section 410 of the Labour Code, so as to repeal the obligation to indicate the duration of a strike;

–         section 412 of the Labour Code, so as to ensure that any disagreement concerning minimum services in organizations responsible for safety, health and life of people and vital interests of society, where the minimum services must be ensured during a strike, is settled by an independent body having the confidence of all parties to the dispute and not the executive body;

–         section 413 of the Labour Code, so as to ensure that, when a strike is prohibited, any disagreement concerning a collective dispute is settled by an independent body and not by the Government; and

–         section 11 of the Law on Fundamentals of State Employment and the relevant section of the Law on the Federal Railway Transport, so as to ensure that railroad employees, as well as those engaged in the public service, who are not exercising authority in the name of the State, enjoy the right to strike.

The Committee regrets that several of its recommendations were not reflected in the amended Labour Code. Indeed, only section 410 of the Labour Code was amended so as to lower the quorum for adopting a decision to strike. It appears that, according to the new wording of this section, a workers’ assembly shall be deemed competent if at least half of the total workforce is present. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Law amending the Labour Code. Hoping that further legislative reform will take into account its previous requests, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any further developments in this respect.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. The Committee notes the discussions in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in 2005. In addition, the Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 2216, 2244 and 2251 (see 337th Report, June 2005).

The Committee further notes the comments on the application of the Convention submitted by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) which concern restrictions imposed on the right to strike and the alleged violation of trade union rights afforded by the Convention in practice. The Committee requests that the Government provide its observations on the ICFTU’s comments.

The Committee notes that the Labour Code is under review. It hopes that the drafted amendments will take into account the Committee’s previous request to modify the following sections of the Labour Code or other legislative texts so as to bring them into conformity with Article 3 of the Convention:

–      section 410 of the Labour Code (providing that a minimum of two-thirds of the total number of workers should be present at the meeting and that the decision to stage a strike should be taken by at least half of the number of delegates present), so as to lower the quorum for a strike ballot, which the Committee considered too high and likely to impede recourse to industrial action, particularly in large enterprises;

–      section 410 of the Labour Code, so as to repeal the obligation to indicate the duration of a strike;

–      section 412 of the Labour Code, so as to ensure that any disagreement concerning minimum services in organizations responsible for safety, health and life of the people and vital interests of the society, where the minimum services must be ensured during a strike, is settled by an independent body having the confidence of all parties to the dispute and not the executive body;

–      section 413 of the Labour Code, so as to ensure that when a strike is prohibited, any disagreement concerning a collective dispute is settled by an independent body and not by the Government; and

–      section 11 of the Law on Fundamentals of State Employment and the relevant section of the Law on the Federal Railway Transport, so as to ensure that railroad employees, as well as those engaged in the public service, who are not exercising authority in the name of the State, enjoy the right to strike.

The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of the developments regarding the amendment of the Labour Code and provide a copy of the amended text as soon as it adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. In addition, the Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2216 (see 332nd and 334th Reports, November 2003 and June 2004, respectively) and Case No. 2251 (333rd Report, March 2004). The Committee further notes with interest the new Law on Associations of Employers, 2002.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. In its previous observation, the Committee noted that according to section 11 of the Labour Code, restrictions provided for by federal law may apply to managers of organizations, personnel combining jobs, women, persons bearing family responsibilities, youth, state employees and others. It further noted that members of directors’ councils of the organizations (with the exception of members who concluded a labour contract with the organization) and persons whose relationship with an employer is regulated by the civil law contract were excluded from the scope of the Labour Code. On that occasion the Committee requested the Government to indicate whether any restrictions have been imposed on the right to organize of these workers and to provide clarification in respect of those persons considered to be regulated by a civil law contract, who are excluded from the scope of the Code. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Labour Code does not limit the right of workers to establish and join trade unions. Referring to section 11 of the Code, the Government points out that the labour legislation applies to all workers in a contractual relationship with employers.

Article 3. Right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their administration and activities. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to amend section 410 of the Labour Code, which provided that a minimum of two-thirds of the total number of workers should be present at the meeting and the decision to take a strike should be taken by at least half of the number of delegates present, so as to lower the quorum required for a strike ballot. The Committee regrets that no information was provided by the Government in this respect. It therefore once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to lower the quorum for a strike ballot, which it considers too high and likely to impede recourse to industrial action, particularly in large enterprises.

The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that section 410 of the Labour Code, which requires workers’ organizations to indicate the duration of a strike, does not, however, prescribe a maximum duration of the strike. The Committee recalls that the mere fact of specifying the duration of the strike, even if it is not binding, impedes the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities free from government interference. The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2251 had also requested the Government to amend section 410 in this respect. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention and to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

In its previous comments, in the light of the Government’s statement that during a strike, the minimum services are to be ensured in every sector of activity, the Committee asked the Government to indicate whether the establishment of minimum services is a requirement applicable to all categories of workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 412 of the Code provides for an exhaustive list of organizations and enterprises where the minimum services must be ensured during a strike. These include organizations responsible for safety, health and life of the people and vital interests of the society. As regards the provision in section 412, that any disagreement concerning the establishment of minimum services should be settled by the authorities, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that any such disagreement is settled following the procedure of collective labour dispute settlement. The Committee notes however that section 412 provides that any disagreement concerning "the establishment of minimum services should be settled by an executive body of the subject of Russian Federation". The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that any disagreement concerning minimum services is settled by an independent body having the confidence of all the parties to the dispute and not the executive body and to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

The Committee notes that in Case No. 2251 the Committee on Freedom of Association requested the Government to indicate the enterprises and services it qualifies as "directly servicing highly hazardous kinds of production or equipment" where the right to strike is prohibited under section 413(1)(b) of the Labour Code. Furthermore, the Committee on Freedom of Association noted that section 17 of the Law on the Federal Railway Transport prohibits the right to strike for railroad employees and section 11 of the Law on Fundamentals of State Employment would appear to prohibit strikes in the public service not only for those who are engaged in the administration of the State, but for many other employees. The Committee, like the Committee on Freedom of Association, requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that railroad employees, as well as those engaged in the public service, who are not exercising authority in the name of the state, enjoy the right to strike. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

As concerns section 413 according to which the decision on collective disputes during the period of emergency and in essential services, as well as when restrictions are provided for by the federal law, are made by the Government of the Russian Federation, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that in addition to efforts to resolve a dispute with the help of conciliation procedures, the parties could address the Government of the Russian Federation, which would make a decision within ten days. In this respect, the Committee notes that section 413 clearly states that in cases where a strike is prohibited, "the decision on a collective industrial dispute shall be issued by the Government of the Russian Federation". The Committee therefore once again recalls that, if the right to strike is subject to restrictions or a prohibition, workers who are thus deprived of an essential means of defending their socio-economic and occupational interests should be afforded compensatory guarantees, for example, conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event of deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties concerned which should provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality and rapidity (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 164). The Committee therefore requests the Government to review its legislation so as to ensure that in those cases any disagreement concerning a collective dispute is settled by an independent body and not by the Government and to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard. Furthermore, recalling that restrictions on the right to strike can only be imposed in essential services and in the case of public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, the Committee once again requests the Government to transmit copies of any federal laws providing for restrictions on strike action.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. It further notes the adoption of the new Labour Code.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right of workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee takes note with satisfaction that the Labour Code of 2002 contains no reference to an imposed trade union monopoly.

The Committee notes that according to section 11 of the Labour Code, restrictions provided for by federal law may apply to managers of organizations, personnel combining jobs, women, persons bearing family responsibilities, youth, state employees and others. It further notes that members of directors’ councils of the organizations (with the exception of members who concluded a labour contract with the organization) and persons whose relationship with an employer is regulated by the civil law contract are excluded from the scope of the Labour Code. Recalling that this Article of the Convention provides that all workers, without distinction whatsoever should have the right to establish and join organizations in the furtherance and defence of their occupational interests, with the sole possible exception being that of armed forces and the police, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any restrictions have been imposed on the right to organize of these workers and to provide clarification in respect of those persons considered to be regulated by a civil law contract, who are excluded from the scope of the Code.

The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that a draft federal Law on Associations of Employers is in the process of preparation by the State Duma. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of this legislation as soon as it is adopted so that the Committee may examine its conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

Article 3. Right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organize their administration and activities. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Federal Law on the Procedure of Settling Collective Labour Disputes is no longer in force. However, the Committee notes with regret that the new Labour Code does not address the previous concerns of the Committee. Thus, regarding the quorum required for a strike ballot the Committee notes section 410 of the Labour Code, which provides that a minimum of two-thirds of the total number of workers should be present at the meeting and the decision to take a strike should be taken by at least half of the number of delegates present. Considering that the quorum set out for a strike is too high and may potentially impede recourse to strike action, particularly in large enterprises, the Committee requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to lower the quorum required for a strike ballot and to keep it informed of the measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

The Committee further notes that section 410 of the Labour Code maintains the obligation to declare a "possible" duration of the strike, whereas the Committee had previously indicated that requiring workers and their organizations to specify the length of a strike would restrict the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The Committee requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that no legal obligation to indicate the duration of a strike is imposed on workers’ organizations and to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Furthermore, the Committee notes section 412 of the Labour Code, which provides that in the event of a disagreement between the parties on the minimum services to be provided in organizations (enterprises) the activities of which ensure safety, health and life of the people, and vital interests of society, the decision is made by an executive body. However, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that minimum services are to be ensured in every sector of activity. In the view of the Committee, the authorities may establish a system of minimum service in services which are of public utility in order to avoid damages which are irreversible or out of all proportion to the occupational interests of the parties to the dispute, as well as damages to third parties, namely the users or consumers who suffer the economic effects of collective disputes. Minimum services could be appropriate in situations in which a substantial restriction or a total prohibition of strike action would not appear to be justified and where, without calling into question the right to strike of the large majority of workers, one might consider ensuring that user’s basic needs are met or that facilities operate safely or without interruption (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 160 and 162). The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the establishment of minimum services is a requirement applicable to all categories of workers and if that is the case, it requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that such a requirement is limited to the abovementioned cases. As regards the provision that any disagreement concerning the establishment of minimum services should be settled by the authorities, section 412 provides that the parties to collective bargaining may appeal the decision of the mentioned body to the courts. The Committee, however, considers that it is preferable for such disagreements to be resolved by an independent body in the first place, so as to avoid any possible delay that would be tantamount to a restriction of strike action. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend its legislation so as to ensure that any disagreement concerning minimum services is settled by an independent body having the confidence of all the parties to the dispute and not the executive body and to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

The Committee notes that the right to strike may not be exercised during the period of emergency and in essential services as well as when restrictions are provided for by the federal law. In those cases, the Committee notes that section 413 provides that the decision on collective agreement disputes are made by the Government of the Russian Federation. In this respect, the Committee recalls that, if the right to strike is subject to restrictions or a prohibition, workers who are thus deprived of an essential means of defending their socio-economic and occupational interests should be afforded compensatory guarantees, for example, conciliation and mediation procedures leading, in the event of deadlock, to arbitration machinery seen to be reliable by the parties concerned which should provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality and rapidity (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 164). The Committee therefore requests the Government to review its legislation so as to ensure that in those cases any disagreement concerning a collective agreement is settled by an independent body and not by the Government and to keep it informed of measures taken or envisaged in this regard. Furthermore, recalling that restrictions on the right to strike can only be imposed in essential services and in the case of public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, the Committee requests the Government to transmit copies of any federal laws providing for restrictions on strike action.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report.

Article 2 of the Convention.  In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that the provision of the Labour Code, as amended in 1992, which appeared to maintain trade union monopolies at the enterprise level (section 230) had not been included in the draft Labour Code under preparation. The Committee notes from the Government’s latest report that the draft Labour Code is under the consideration of the State Duma and that the text will be sent to the Office after its adoption. The Committee recalls that section 230 refers to the rights of the trade union committee elected at the enterprise or workplace and thus leaves doubt about the possibility of more than one union existing at the same time in the same enterprise. The Committee trusts that this ambiguity will not be retained in the new Code and requests the Government to transmit a copy of the new Code as soon as it is adopted.

Article 3.  Referring to its earlier comments concerning the obligation to declare the duration of a strike under section 14(5) of the 1995 Act on procedures for the resolution of collective labour disputes, the Committee had noted the Government’s previous indication that workers who did not cease strike action on the day after the notified date on which the strike is to end may be subjected to disciplinary penalties under the Labour Code, including rebukes, reprimands or, as a last resort, dismissal. In its latest report, the Government indicates that, in accordance with sections 18 and 22 of the Act on procedures for the resolution of collective labour disputes, disciplinary punishment due to strike action may only be imposed in the event of non-compliance with a court order. The Committee further notes however that section 17 of the Act establishes that a strike is illegal if it was declared without regard for the time frames, procedures and requirements stipulated by the sections of the Act, including section 14. The Committee considers that forcing the employees and their organizations to specify the length of a strike would restrict the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The right to strike is effectively, by definition, a means of applying pressure which the workers and their organizations may use to promote and defend their social and economic interests and achieve satisfaction in their claims. The Committee therefore requests the Government to eliminate the obligation to notify the duration of the strike, and asks it to include details in its next report on the measures effectively taken in this connection.

Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in its opinion, the Act on the procedure of the settlement of collective labour disputes sets out a clear-cut definition of the terms and conditions under which strike action is not available. The Committee considers however that the numerous requirements set out, in particular in sections 14 and 16 of the Act, concerning the declaration of a strike and the course of action during a strike could easily render strikes illegal on the basis of minor procedural flaws. The Committee notes, for example, that the failure to provide a minimum service may result in a strike being declared illegal under the Act, while the determination of the minimum to be provided will be made by the executive body or body of local self-government in cases where the parties have not been able to agree. In cases of disagreement concerning minimum services, however, the Committee considers that it is preferable for such disagreements to be resolved by an independent body. These and other requirements give rise to a rather complex and complicated procedure for the exercise of legal strike action that may place unnecessary obstacles to its exercise in practice. The Committee would therefore request the Government to consider reviewing and simplifying the Act so as to ensure that the requirements for undertaking legal strike action do not effectively hinder the right of workers’ organizations to organize their activities. Furthermore, it requests the Government to transmit copies of any recent relevant court judgements concerning the legality of strike action.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report.

Article 2 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether the provisions of section 230 of the Labour Code, as amended in 1992, and which appeared to maintain trade union monopoly in enterprises, had been repealed. The Committee notes from the Government's report that, while this provision has not yet been repealed, it is not included in the draft Labour Code which has been prepared. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in respect of the draft Labour Code and to transmit a copy of the text upon its adoption.

The Committee had noted that the application of the Act on trade unions of 1996 to trade unions of various categories of public employees was to be determined by the respective laws (Article 4). The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the laws in question and a copy of the relevant texts, particularly in respect of employees of Russian Federation internal affairs agencies, agencies of the Federal Security Service, Russian Federation customs agencies, Federal Fiscal Police Agencies, judges and prosecutors.

Article 3. The Committee noted that, according to section 14(5) the Act on procedures for the resolution of collective labour disputes of 1995, the decision to declare a strike had to indicate the duration thereof. The Committee had asked the Government to state what the consequences were, for workers or their organizations, when a strike exceeded the stated duration.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that workers who do not cease strike action on the day after the notified date on which the strike is to end may be subjected to disciplinary penalties under the Labour Code, including rebukes, reprimands or, as a last resort, dismissal. Recalling that the right to strike is one of the essential means available to workers and their organizations for the promotion and protection of their economic and social interests, the Committee is of the view that requiring a precision to the duration of a strike would eventually be admissible only as a general indication on the part of the workers but should not be subject to disciplinary penalty, including dismissal, as it would restrict the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes. The Committee would ask the Government, including in the course of the revision of the Labour Code, to amend it's legislation to ensure that disciplinary penalties cannot be imposed for failure to end a strike on a predetermined date.

The Committee would also recall its previous comment that the Law on procedures for the resolution of labour disputes does not allow a clear determination of the circumstances in which strikes are authorized. It once again encourages the Government to endeavour to clarify the relevant provisions to ensure unambiguously the right of trade unions to organize their activities.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report. It notes with interest that the Act on procedures for the resolution of labour disputes, and the Act on trade unions were adopted on 23 November 1995 and 12 January 1996 respectively. It notes that these texts take account of some of its comments. However, it raises certain points which call for comments or additional information.

Article 2 of the Convention. According to the definition given under Article 3 (Basic Terms) of the Act on trade unions, a primary trade union organization is a "voluntary association of trade union members" working, as a rule, at one and the same enterprise, institution or organization, irrespective of form of ownership or subordination. The rules governing primary trade union organizations fall within the competence of the "trade unions" (Article 71). The Committee asks the Government to provide clarification regarding the right of workers to form, if they so wish, directly at the level of the enterprise, organizations of their choosing, which depend on no existing trade union.

Referring to its previous direct request, the Committee again asks the Government to state whether the provisions of section 230 of the Labour Code, as amended in 1992, and which appeared to maintain trade union monopoly in enterprises, have been repealed.

The Committee notes that the application of the Act on trade unions to trade unions of various categories of public employees must be determined by the respective laws (Article 4). The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the laws in question and a copy of the relevant texts, particularly in respect of employees of Russian Federation internal affairs agencies, agencies of the Federal Security Service, Russian Federation customs agencies, Federal Fiscal Police Agencies, judges and prosecutors.

Article 3. The Committee notes that, according to the Act on procedures for the resolution of collective labour disputes, the decision to declare a strike must indicate the duration thereof. The Committee asks the Government to state what the consequences are, for workers or their organizations, when a strike exceeds the stated duration.

The Committee further notes that under section 14(2), a strike can be called further to a vote requiring a 75 per cent quorum and a 50 per cent majority of those voting. The Committee considers that the cumulative effect of these provisions could prevent recourse to strike action, particularly in big enterprises and that the quorum requirement should be set at a reasonable level.

The Committee again asks the Government to state whether the Law on emergency powers of 3 April 1990, the Decree of the President of the USSR of 16 May 1991 and section 190.3 of the Penal Code, which contain major restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike and provide for severe penalties, including imprisonment for up to three years, have been repealed by a specific text, as the Committee requested in its previous comment.

The Committee considers that the Law on procedures for the resolution of labour disputes does not allow a clear determination of the circumstances in which strikes are authorized. It encourages the Government to endeavour to clarify the relevant provisions to ensure unambiguously the right of trade unions to organize their activities.

Article 7. The Act on trade unions (Article 8.1), expressly allows trade unions not to register. In this case, they do not acquire the rights deriving from legal personality. The Committee asks the Government to clarify this provision, in particular by stating what activities are authorized for trade unions which do not register.

The Committee reminds the Government that, should it so wish, it may avail itself of ILO assistance with a view to taking the measures necessary to proper application of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report.

It recalls that its previous comments concerned the right of workers, without distinction whatsoever, to establish organizations of their own choosing and the right of organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes in full freedom without interference from the public authorities with a view to furthering and defending the interests of their members.

According to the information available to the ILO, the preliminary draft of the Bill respecting the settlement of collective labour disputes would appear to contain certain provisions which are not in accordance with the principles of freedom of association, and particularly the requirement of a majority of two-thirds of the employees in an enterprise to call a strike, the prohibition of strikes in the federal railways, public urban transport and maritime, air and river transport enterprises, the imposition by the Government of a compulsory minimum service during certain strikes, and the power of the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of Russia to suspend a strike for two months if it is of particular significance to the survival of the Russian Federation and its component territories. The Committee recalls that the right to strike is one of the means which should be available to workers and their organizations for the promotion of their economic, social and occupational interests and that the restriction or prohibition of the right to strike should be confined to strikes in the essential services, in the strict sense of the term, that is services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population, or if it is liable to cause an acute national crisis, and then only for a limited period and to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation. In the event that a strike is subject to restrictions, compensatory guarantees should be afforded to the workers concerned (see 1994 General Survey, paragraph 164). Finally, with regard to the requirement of a strike ballot, the law should ensure that account is taken only of the votes cast and the required quorum and majority should be fixed at a reasonable level; furthermore, in the event of restrictions on the right to strike in services which are not essential in the strict sense of the term, workers and their organizations should be able, if they so wish, to participate in defining the minimum service, along with employers and the public authorities.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to supply with its next report the legal texts which are being prepared or which have recently been adopted, to which it refers in its report, on the settlement of collective disputes, trade unions and the right of association of citizens. The Committee also requests the Government to state in its next report whether the legislative measures that are being prepared will specifically repeal: the Law on Emergency Powers of 3 April 1990; the Decree of the President of the USSR of 16 May 1990 and section 190(3) of the Penal Code, which contain important restrictions on the right to strike, combined with severe sanctions, including sentences of imprisonment for up to three years; and section 230 of the new Labour Code, as amended on 25 September 1992, which appears to have maintained the system of trade union monopoly at the enterprise level.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report.

1. Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention. Right of organizations to organize their activities freely and to formulate their programme of action without interference from the public authorities, in order to promote and defend the interests of their members.

(a) The Committee notes that the legislation still contains severe restrictions on the right of organizations to strike in order to defend the occupational interests of the workers (section 11 of the Law on the Settlement of Collective Labour Disputes of 9 October 1989 which prohibits strikes, in particular, in the urban rail transport sector including the Metro, civil aviation and the energy sector; the Law on Emergency Powers of 3 April 1990; section 5 of the Decree of the President of the USSR of 16 May 1991 on emergency measures to guarantee work stability in the branches of activity essential to the national economy, which allows strikes to be banned and severe penalties to be imposed, including fines for breaches of labour discipline and penalties of imprisonment of up to three years (section 14 of the Law of 9 October 1989; the Law on Emergency Powers of 3 April 1990; section 5(2) of the Decree of the President of the USSR of 16 May 1991; section 190(3) of the Penal Code).

The Committee is of the opinion that the restriction or prohibition of the right to strike should be confined to essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (see 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, para, 159). The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or envisaged to bring section 11 of the Law on the Settlement of Collective Labour Disputes of 9 October 1989 into conformity with the above principle, so as to ensure that the legislation on emergency powers is not applied in such a way as to impair the principles of freedom of association in respect of the right to strike.

(b) With regard to certain other provisions concerning the exercise of the right to strike (sections 3, 7, 9 and 15 of the Law of 9 October 1989 on the Settlement of Collective Labour Disputes), the Committee asks the Government in its next report to provide detailed answers to the questions it raised under point 2 of its Direct Request of 1991.

2. Article 2. Right of Workers, without distinction whatsoever, to form organizations of their own choosing.

(a) The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report whether the Law on Trade Unions of 10 December 1990 applies to all workers without distinction as to nationality.

(b) The Committe has pointed out for many years that several provisions of the Labour Code, including section 230, which governed the rights of local factory or works trade union committees and their relations with the management of an enterprise, establishment or organization, were inconsistent with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Act of 25 September 1992 amends section 230 and provides that "the rights of the locally elected trade union body in the enterprise, institution or organization and the guarantees of its activities are defined in the law, statutes, agreements and collective agreements". In these circumstances, the Committee considers that new section 230 seems to maintain trade union unity in enterprises. It draws the Government's attention to the importance that it attaches to the principle whereby minority organizations should be allowed to function and at least have the right to make representations on behalf of their members and to represent them in the case of individual grievances (see 1994 General Survey, op. cit., para. 98), and asks the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to guarantee the right of workers to join organizations of their own choosing.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

1. The Committee notes that the Law on public associations of 16 October 1990 recognises, in section 9, the right of foreigners or stateless persons to join public associations only if the statutes of such associations so provide.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the Law on trade unions of 10 December 1990 is to be interpreted in the light of this provision or whether it applies to all workers without distinction, particularly as to nationality.

2. With reference to the Law on the settlement of collective labour disputes of 9 October 1990, the Committee:

(a) asks the Government to indicate whether the arbitration procedure provided for in section 3 is applied upon agreement of the two parties concerned or at the initiative of one of the two parties;

(b) draws the Government's attention to the fact that the requirement of a two-thirds majority of the votes of the members of the collective concerned or of the delegates to the assembly can constitute an obstacle to the calling of a strike (section 7); it asks the Government to indicate whether the majority in question is a majority of the total membership of the collective or of the workers taking part in the vote;

(c) asks the Government to indicate what the consequences would be for the workers on strike and their organisation if the strike exceeded the duration stated in the advance notice (section 7);

(d) asks the Government to provide information on the circumstances that may lead to postponement of a strike (section 9);

(e) notes that strikes are forbidden in several very broadly defined sectors: rail and urban transport including the Metro, civil aviation, and power production inter alia (section 11). The Committee recalls that the right to strike can be restricted or banned in essential services in the strict sense, i.e. services whose interruption might endanger the life, personal safety and health of the whole or part of the population. Furthermore, rather than prohibiting strikes in sectors which do not provide essential services in the strict sense of the term, it would be more in keeping with the principle of freedom of association to provide for the establishment of a minimum service to be defined in co-operation with all the parties concerned. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on any measures taken in this respect;

(f) asks the Government to indicate whether section 190(3) of the Penal Code is still in force; this provision lays down penalties of imprisonment of a maximum of three years or a fine for organising or actively participating in collective actions that disturb the public order, or are accompanied by a clear refusal to obey legal orders from representatives of the authority, or disturb the transport service of public or social enterprises or establishments;

(g) asks the Government to provide information on the scope of section 15 which provides that any damage to other enterprises, establishments, organisations or individuals caused by a strike, must be compensated for in conformity with the provisions of the legislation in force, indicating in particular where the responsibility for such compensation lies.

3. The Committee notes that under section 2 of the Order of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, concerning the entry into force of the Law respecting trade unions of 10 December 1990, the Government must submit to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, within the specified time-limit, proposals to amend and complete the Law of the USSR respecting the settlement of collective labour disputes, particularly the part concerning the responsibility for the organisation of unlawful strikes.

The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to give effect to this provision.

4. The Committee notes the adoption of the Law on the state of emergency of 3 April 1990. Under the provisions of this Law, once it has been declared, the state of emergency may lead, inter alia, to a prohibition of rallies and strikes, enforceable by a maximum of three years imprisonment for leaders of prohibited strikes.

The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether, during the period covered by its next report, it has had recourse to these provisions.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

With reference to the comments it has been making for many years, the Committee notes with satisfaction the modifications introduced into the legislation regarding the leading role of the Communist Party, the possibility of trade union pluralism and the independence of trade unions, and the right of workers to resort to strikes to defend their interests.

1. The Committee notes in particular that section 6 of the Constitution of the USSR which laid down the leading role of the Communist Party over mass organisations, including trade unions, has been amended by the Law of the USSR adopted on 14 March 1990 and that, in accordance with the new wording of this provision, the Party participates in the development of Soviet state policy along with other political parties, trade unions, youth organisations and other public organisations.

2. The Committee also notes that the Law of the USSR on public associations of 16 October 1990 and the Law of the USSR on trade unions, their rights and the guarantees of their activities, of 10 December 1990 recognise the possibility of trade union pluralism. It notes in particular that section 2 of the Law on trade unions guarantees the right of workers, without any distinction, to establish voluntarily and without prior authorisation, unions of their choice, and to join trade unions, provided that they observe the statutes of the unions. It also notes that section 3 of the same Law provides that trade unions shall enjoy full independence in drafting and adopting their statutes, determining their structure, electing their officers, organising their activities, holding their meetings, conferences, plenary sessions and congresses.

3. Lastly, the Committee notes that the Law of the USSR on the settlement of collective labour disputes of 9 October 1990 recognises the right of workers, in certain circumstances, to resort to strikes to defend their occupational interests.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Order of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR concerning the entry into force of the Law of the USSR on trade unions provides that the Government of the USSR, in the course of the first half of 1991, shall align its decisions with the provisions of the Law of the USSR on trade unions and shall take measures for the review or abolition by the Ministries, State Committees and Government Directorates of the USSR of all the labour statutes, particularly any instructions which are contrary to this Law.

The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it drew the Government's attention to the provisions of the national legislation which established the pre-eminence of the local factory or works trade union committee for the representation of workers. It had pointed out that these provisions precluded the emergence of trade union organisations outside the existing trade union structure (Labour Code of 1971, Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet issuing regulations respecting the rights of the local factory or works trade union committee, of 27 September 1971).

Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Law of the USSR on the settlement of collective labour disputes of 9 October 1990 still refers to the works trade union committee as the only competent trade union body for the settlement of collective labour disputes.

The Committee therefore trusts that, in accordance with the above-mentioned Order of the Supreme Soviet, all the provisions of the national legislation will be amended so as to remove any legal ambiguity as to the possibility of genuine trade union pluralism and asks the Government to provide information on progress made in this respect.

The Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government for information on other points.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the debate and the comments at the Conference Committee in 1987.

It recalls that its comments dealt with the system of trade union monopoly, the links between the Communist Party and the trade unions and the right to meet being made subject to prior authorisation.

1. The right of workers to establish organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation

In the comments that it has been making since 1960, the Committee has pointed out that any congress, conference or meeting, under the terms of Order No. 908 of 15 May 1935, was subject to prior authorisation. It considered that this Order could give the public authorities the possibility of opposing the establishment of a new organisation or a new federation or confederation by, for example, refusing authorisation for a constitutive assembly of an occupational organisation to meet.

In its previous reports, the Government on many occasions indicated that the provisions of this Order had never been applied to occupational organisations and that they were considered to have fallen into abeyance.

The Committee requested the Government to supply information on any change in the legislation in this respect.

In its last report, the Government indicates that Order No. 908 of 15 May 1935 has ceased to apply to the holding of congresses, conferences and meetings of co-operative organisations, trade unions and other social organisations, by virtue of Order No. 391 of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of 29 March 1988, and it supplies a copy of this Order which expressly provides in its title that Order No. 908 of 15 May 1935 partially ceases to be in force and, more specifically in the text itself, that Order No. 908 of 15 May 1935, "concerning authorisation for holding congresses, conferences and meetings" organised by co-operative organisations, trade unions and other social organisations is no longer in force.

The Committee notes with satisfaction the contents of Order No. 391 of 29 March 1988.

2. The right of workers to establish organisations of their own choosing outside the existing trade union structure

In its previous comments, the Committee noted several provisions of the Labour Codes of the federated republics and the regulations issued thereunder which establish the pre-eminence of the local factory or works trade union committee for the representation of workers, to the exclusion, in practice, of any other trade union organisation which might wish to act in defence of the occupational and economic interests of the workers in a factory or works, particularly in the RSFSR:

- section 7 of the Labour Code of 1971, which provides that collective agreements are concluded in the name of the employees by the local factory or works trade union committee with the administration of the enterprise or organisation concerned;

- section 230 of the Code, which deals with the rights of the local factory or works trade union committee and its relations with the management of an enterprise, institution or organisation, including: that of representing the interests of the workers in an enterprise, institution or organisation in the fields of production and work and of organising socialist competition jointly with the management and of promoting a communist attitude towards work;

- sections 231, 233, 234 and 235 of the Code, which deal with the powers and functions of the trade union committee; and - the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, issuing regulations respecting the rights of the local factory or works trade union committee, of 27 September 1971, which describes in detail the powers of these committees.

In its previous reports, the Government indicated that the Fundamental Principles Governing Labour Legislation of the USSR and the provisions of the Labour Codes of the federated republics do not prohibit the establishment of trade unions other than existing trade unions.

The Committee considered that, if a trade union were established outside the existing trade union structure, it would be impossible for it to exercise trade union activities to defend the occupational and economic interests of its members, since the 1971 Regulations respecting the rights of local factory and works trade union committees (and certain provisions of the Labour Code of the RSFSR) attribute these functions to the trade union committees of enterprises, institutions and organisations, which are bodies of the existing trade union structure, and it requested the Government to re-examine the legislation in order to guarantee workers, who so wish, the right to establish trade unions of their own choosing outside the existing trade union structure, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, and to indicate whether initiatives had been taken by workers to establish organisations that are independent of the existing trade union structure and, if this is the case, to indicate the results.

During the discussion in the Conference Committee in 1987 and in its last report, the Government once again stated that neither the Constitution, nor the Fundamental Principles Governing Labour Legislation, nor the Labour Code of the RSFSR restrict the number of occupational organisations in an enterprise. The State does not intervene in the internal workings of trade unions, which act in accordance with their by-laws, and the legislation does not provide for the registration of these by-laws. In the USSR, the trade unions participate in the management of the State since the legislation recognises their right to legislative initiative and to participate in the formulation of legislation. The new Act of 30 June 1987 on state enterprises (amalgamation), together with reforms in economic management, associates them more closely through workers' collectives in the management of enterprises on a new basis of collaboration between workers and management.

With regard to the 1971 Regulations, the Government indicates once again that no provision prohibits the establishment of trade unions. The Government emphasises the fact that the national legislation does not impose trade union monopoly; however, workers in the USSR are of the opinion that the unity of the trade union movement is the most important achievement of the workers and that the existence of several trade union organisations competing within the same country is prejudicial to the workers' struggle for their rights. The Government repeated its previous declarations to the effect that trade union unity in the USSR had happened immediately after the socialist revolution in 1917. It admits, however, the need to improve trade union legislation and announces that proposals have been made to adopt a special law on trade unions to define the rights of workers, the functions, duties and role of trade unions and to empower them to reject any Government decision that is contrary to the interests of the workers and has been taken without the agreement of the trade unions, thereby giving the trade unions the role of a counterbalance to technocratic powers. The Government also supplied statistical data on the increase in the functions of trade unions and indicates in reply to the Committee's observation on this point that it has no information available on whether initiatives have been taken by workers to establish workers' organisations that are independent of the existing trade union structure.

The Committee notes these statements and this information and observes that the new Act on state enterprises of 1987 grants the work collectives - which includes workers, work-team leaders, foremen, specialists and representatives of management and the Party, trade union, young communists and other public organisations - greater independence in the management of the enterprise. It also notes that Decree No. 8430-XI of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of 4 February 1988 introduces the self-management system for work collectives, and gives the works trade union committee greater power of control over the dismissal of managerial-level employees in the enterprise.

While noting these measures, the Committee points out that the principles of Convention No. 87 do not have the effect of supporting either trade union unity or trade union pluralism. The purpose of the Convention is to make trade union pluralism possible in all cases. In the Committee's opinion, the national legislation, and particularly the 1971 Regulations, which attribute trade union functions solely to the bodies of the existing trade union structure, restrict the possibility of other organisations, should they be established outside this structure, exercising trade union functions to further and defend the interests of their members and are liable to restrict the interest of workers in establishing other trade union organisations outside this structure.

The Committee notes the Government's reaffirmed wish to pursue dialogue and trusts that it will take into account the Committee's comments, in the context of its enterprise reforms, and that it will be possible to take measures to lift the legislative restrictions and recognise the rights and functions necessary to defend and further the interests of the members of any trade union that might be established outside the existing structure.

3. The leading role of the Communist Party

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that under the terms of the Constitution - and in particular of section 6, under which the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is the leading and guiding force of Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system, of all state organisations and social organisations - that the Party determines the general perspectives of the development of society within which trade unions must act, which, contrary to the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention, does not guarantee trade unions the right to exercise their activities freely and in full independence.

In its report, the Government emphasises once again the fact that the relations between the Party and the trade unions do not affect the application of the Convention since this relationship is of a political and not a legal nature. The Government points out that the Party and the trade unions have common objectives and that the role of the Party, as the historic guide of the trade union movement, is to increase the role of trade unions in all spheres of activity in the country without the Party exercising trade union activities. The Government points out that section 7 of the Constitution provides that trade unions participate in managing the State and in deciding political, economic and social matters in accordance with the functions accorded to them by the law. Trade unions act in full independence and the statutes of trade unions adopted at the XVIIIth Congress contain no provisions that give the Party the right to restrict the freedom or activities of trade unions, which are independent, non-political, mass organisations.

The Committee notes these statements and observes that the principle laid down in section 6 of the Soviet Constitution is taken up again in section 6 of the 1987 Act on state enterprises (amalgamation) which provides that the Party organisation in the enterprise is the political nucleus of the work collective, that it functions within the framework of the Constitution of the USSR and that it guides the work of the entire collective and its self-management bodies, trade unions, young communists and other public organisations, and that it supervises the activities of management.

The Committee is therefore once again bound to draw the Government's attention to the importance of the indepedence of trade unions, which is an indispensable condition to enable them to play the role of defending and promoting the interests of their members. In the Committee's opinion, the relationship established by the national legislation between the Party and trade union organisations is contrary to Article 3 of the Convention since the State, as the legislator, through this provision restricts the rights of such organisations to organise their activities and formulate their programmes.

The Committee hopes that it will be possible to re-examine these matters in the light of its comments. It requests the Government to report on any measures that have been taken or are envisaged to ensure that the legislation is in conformity with the Convention with regard to the right of workers to establish trade union organisations outside the existing trade union structure, should they so wish, and the right of workers' organisations to organise their activities and formulate their programmes in full independence and without interference from the public authorities.