Definitive Report - Report No 412, November 2025

Case No 3483 (Republic of Moldova) - Complaint date: 24-OCT-24 - Closed

Allegations: The complainant organization alleges insufficient protection, both in law and in practice, against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, and the Government’s unwillingness to address such practices

1. 621. The complaint is contained in communications dated 12 September, 24 October and 19 November 2024 from the National Trade Union Confederation of Moldova (CNSM).
2. 622. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 28 November and 9 December 2024 and 10 September 2025.
3. 623. The Republic of Moldova has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), and the Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 624. In its communications dated 12 September, 24 October and 19 November 2024, the complainant alleges insufficient protection, both in law and in practice, against acts of anti union discrimination and interference, as well as the Government’s unwillingness to address such practices.
2. 625. In particular, the complainant alleges that the scope of section 61 of the Contravention Code, 2008, which provides for sanctions for anti-union discrimination and interference, is limited to two practices only – it sanctions actions that prevent the establishment of trade unions and those that prevent workers from joining trade unions. The provision does therefore not cover other acts of interference by the employer or another person in a position of responsibility, with the aim of destroying a trade union, or acts including coercion through threats, bribery or promises to improve working conditions. Furthermore, the complainant alleges that the sanctions that are provided for by the law are insufficient and do not have a deterrent effect – they range from 24 to 30 conventional units imposable on a natural person (up to 1,500 Moldovan lei, which equals US$85) or 30 to 42 conventional units imposable on a person with a position of responsibility (up to 2,100 lei, which equals US$119). The complainant also suggests that the sanctions foreseen by section 61 of the Contravention Code are not applied in practice by the labour inspectorate, not because of a lack of violations but due to a lack of complaints in this respect. According to the complainant, this is caused by: the ineffectiveness of the symbolic fines, the possibility for employers to take revenge through means allowed by law (reduction in function, late payment of wages, transfer to another job) and the vulnerability of the protection system in addressing the consequences of having complained about employers’ actions. It alleges, in particular, that by mimicking the need to reduce positions on economic grounds, the Labour Code allows employers to transfer workers, including union leaders to other positions and to dismiss them, showing inadequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination targeting trade union leaders. According to the complainant, the above circumstances constitute an encouragement to neglect the observance of labour and trade union legislation.
3. 626. The complainant adds that, despite the Committee’s previous recommendations to the Government in Case No. 2317 to examine the legislative provisions so as to provide for fairly severe sanctions in case of violations of trade union rights and ensure their application in practice, the national legal framework has not been amended in this respect. Furthermore, even though the complainant submitted proposals to amend section 61 of the Contravention Code on several occasions between March 2022 and June 2024, so as to establish sanctions for cases of discrimination and anti-union interference, their consideration was either unjustifiably delayed or ignored.
4. 627. To illustrate the above, the complainant points to alleged serious anti-union interference at the National Centre for Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Assistance (the National Centre), which led to the destruction of the existing local union, affiliated to the trade union federation SANATATEA, and the creation of a new union under the direct control of the establishment’s administration. The complainant alleges that the administration engaged in intimidation of all workers/union members who were forced to sign standardized applications for leaving the union at the establishment. The employer’s representatives collected 3,826 such applications in one day (out of 4,090 workers). Those that refused to comply with the demand were subjected to constant intimidation and pressure, including demotion, proposal of other jobs not in line with the workers’ qualifications and even threats of pay cuts and dismissals. In this regard, the complainant alleges that: (i) Mr Vitalie Scerbenco, who is an auditor specialist in monitoring and reporting services, was offered the position of storekeeper; only when the complainant intervened with the management was he offered a position in line with his qualifications, but the employer continues to fail to pay the severance pay in connection with the reduction in function, as a continuous form of revenge of the management; (ii) Ms Luminita Matco was harassed, shouted at and not paid her salary for one month because she refused to join the new union; she resigned after the incident and complained to the labour inspectorate and (iii) Mr Serghei Oboroc informed that the management put pressure on the workers to switch unions under the threat of dismissal or loss of pay. These actions were, according to the complainant, contrary to freedom of association and to national legislation (section 6(2) of the Trade Union Law).
5. 628. The complainant further alleges that the management of the National Centre also requested the President of the union, Mr Anatol Fortuna, to submit a report on the union’s financial means for 2023 to a management meeting in April 2024. When he refused to do so, claiming this constituted interference in trade union activity, the management retaliated through demotion – under the pretext of the need to reduce functions on economic grounds. Mr Fortuna was demoted from his previous position and was offered another one, which he accepted. However, since the employer disregarded all the work previously executed by the President, he felt obliged to resign. The complainant alleges that the above measures led to the destruction of the existing trade union and the creation of a new trade union – Ambulanța din Moldova – under the management’s control. The complainant alleges that the union’s founding members are 16 representatives of the management.
6. 629. The complainant indicates that it reported these incidents to the relevant authorities, both to the National Commission for Consultations and Collective Bargaining and through official requests submitted to the Government, the Parliament, the Presidency and the labour inspectorate. In its August 2024 reply, the Ministry of Health reported that it did not have detailed information about the creation of a new union, that the right to join a trade union was voluntary, in accordance with the Trade Union Law and that the Ministry did not interfere in trade union activities of its subordinate institutions. The Ministry of Labour and Social Protection indicated that, in August 2024, it examined the issue of trade union organization within the National Centre, together with the representatives from the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, the Ministry of Health, the CNSM and the ILO National Coordinator. The Ministry indicated to the complainant that, after discussion, it considered that the participating public authorities were involved in influencing the decision of the workers to leave or join trade unions, which was a priori unacceptable and not legally grounded. However, since the Ministry could not intervene in the resolution of the matter, it supported the CNSM request to forward the matter to the ILO. The labour inspectorate, up until the submission of the current complaint, did not react to the complainant’s reports of anti-union discrimination and interference. The complainant adds that the trade union federation SANATATEA, to which the union at the National Centre is affiliated, requested the intervention and support of the European Public Service Union (EPSU), for the prompt investigation and resolution. The EPSU sent letters to the Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova, the European Commission and the Commissioner for European Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations but the complainant was not informed of any action taken in this regard.
7. 630. According to the complainant, the above situation shows the Government’s total unwillingness to get involved to prevent acts of anti-union interference. In its view, the Government should take concrete measures to establish prompt procedures and severe sanctions to ensure adequate protection against acts of discrimination and anti-union interference.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 631. In its communications dated 28 November and 9 December 2024 and 10 September 2025, the Government provides information on both the legislative aspects of the case and the concrete allegations of anti-union acts. Regarding the legislative issues, the Government contests the allegations that the sanctions foreseen in section 61 of the Contravention Code for anti-union acts are insufficiently stringent to prevent and deter such violations. It indicates in this regard that neither Convention No. 87 nor Convention No. 98 establish specific obligations regarding the nature or severity of sanctions for anti-union discrimination and interference. Instead, each State has the discretion to define the nature and range of penalties based on factors such as the scale of the violation, the actual harm caused, the social threat posed and other objective circumstances relevant to each country, while ensuring that the sanction achieves key objectives of restoring social equity, correcting the offender and preventing and deterring future illegal actions. The Government also contests the allegations that the legislation lacks an efficient mechanism to address coercion and influence tactics against individuals, such as threats of bribery, promises of improved working conditions or employer or authority interventions aimed at dismantling unions, stating that although these acts are not covered by section 61 of the Contravention Code, they may potentially fall under other relevant penal provisions, including sections 155, 333 and 334 of the Penal Code.
2. 632. The Government nevertheless adds that, in case of alleged legislative gaps or deficiencies, as in the current complaint, the Ministry of Justice is open to collaborating on improving legislation on contraventions so as to combat all forms of violations of trade union rights. An increase in the frequency and severity of violations could necessitate stricter penalties, prompting swift legislative amendments to strengthen the national legal framework. It affirms in this regard that the CNSM’s proposal to amend section 61 of the Contravention Code was not ignored. Instead, following the review of these proposals, the majority of them were accepted and incorporated into the consolidated project to amend the Contravention Code. According to the Government, the CNSM itself acknowledged this when it stated, during the approval procedure in September 2024, that the decision to increase fines for violations of trade union legislation or obstruction of trade union rights represents an important step in protecting labour rights and interests of trade union members and strengthening the role of trade unions. The Government states that during consultations with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, trade unions emphasized that the main expectation was to adopt effective sanctions against acts of interference in trade union activities and endorsed the provisions in the draft law, as an effective framework for the protection of trade union freedom. Employers’ representatives also welcomed the draft law. According to workers’ and employers’ representatives, the proposed draft amendment to the Contravention Code therefore represents an important step in addressing interference in trade union and employers’ activities.
3. 633. In particular, the Government indicates that the current draft stipulates the following sanctions: (i) a fine of 30 to 41 conventional units for individuals and 42 to 50 conventional units for persons in managerial positions for preventing employees from forming or joining trade unions to defend their professional, economic and social interests; (ii) a fine of 80 to 100 conventional units for individuals and 100 to 120 conventional units for persons in managerial positions for violations of trade union legislation or any coercion aimed at preventing members from exercising their trade union rights, as guaranteed by law, statutes or collective agreements (new provision); and (iii) a fine of 100 to 120 conventional units for individuals and 120 to 150 conventional units for persons in managerial positions for conditioning, coercion or interference aimed at limiting the exercise of duties by elected members of trade union leadership.
4. 634. The Government therefore considers that it has taken concrete steps to strengthen the protection of trade union rights – a draft law amending section 61 of the Contravention Code to expressly provide for sanctions against interference in trade union activities has been subject to public consultations, endorsed by competent authorities and is currently in its final drafting stage. After the September 2025 elections and the investiture of the new parliament, the draft law should be immediately submitted for adoption. In the meantime, the Government would appreciate the expertise of the Office on the proposed revision of section 61 of the Contravention Code.
5. 635. With regard to the allegations of anti-union interference by the administration of the National Centre, the Government asserts that, in line with the Trade Union Law, trade unions, in their activity, are independent from public authorities at all levels, political parties, public associations, and employers and their associations, and are not subject to their control or subordinated to them; any such interference is prohibited. The Government indicates that the subject of trade unionization in the health sector was examined on the platform of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection in August 2024, in its role as the secretariat of the National Commission for Consultations and Collective Bargaining, which has a consultative role in settling conflict situations between the social partners. The Ministry of Health, the CNSM and the ILO also participated in the discussions, and the views of the National Centre were also sought. The Ministry of Labour indicates that any interference to limit the rights of trade unions is prohibited and that, as a result, following the discussions held, and based on the principle of non-interference in trade union activities, the intervention of the participating public authorities in respect of the alleged influence on the employees’ decisions to leave or join the existing trade unions at the establishment in question is, a priori, unacceptable and cannot be legally founded. The Ministry adds, however, that it is ready to continue to provide a platform for discussion and mediation between the parties, so as to contribute to the amicable settlement of the dispute.
6. 636. The Government further asserts that the withdrawal of union membership and the establishment of the new union were conducted in compliance with the law. In particular, the Government indicates that there are currently two primary trade unions at the National Centre: Ambulanța din Moldova founded in June 2024 with 4,043 members and the union of workers of the National Centre with 7 members; 238 workers are not affiliated to any union. This situation, where there are currently two trade unions, as well as non-unionized workers, shows that workers at the National Centre have been fully ensured their constitutional right to free association. Regarding the legality of the establishment of the union Ambulanța din Moldova, the Ministry of Health informed that on 11 June 2024, a founding meeting was attended by 16 founders who unanimously decided on the establishment of the union, the approval of its statute, the appointment of the union’s committee and the election of its president. The legality of its founding was confirmed by the union’s registration, after the Public Services Agency examined the acts of establishments and verified compliance with the legal procedure. As the legislation does not establish any prohibitions or incompatibilities regarding the status of founders of a primary trade union, the complainant’s allegations that these are constituted by the management of the National Centre have no legal support.
7. 637. Regarding the withdrawal of members of the Union of Workers at the National Centre before the establishment of the new union, the Government asserts that the collective voluntary withdrawal was caused by the members’ dissatisfaction with the total lack of transparency in the activity of the union’s governing bodies, the lack of material assistance to the members who needed financial support and, in a particular case, the lack of material help for cancer treatment of a union member. In addition, union members had no access to the content of the statute, did not attend the annual general meetings, did not know about the work of the union committee, the union’s reports were not made public and the leadership failed to report on the union’s financial expenses collected through monthly dues over the past four years. The Government considers that the intention of the majority of the workers was therefore to voluntarily withdraw from the union and create a new independent trade union which would transparently defend their professional, economic, labour, social, collective and individual rights and interests. The applications to withdraw were signed individually by each applicant, without the consent of the administration of the National Centre and were then counted by an ad hoc committee and 3,826 such applications were forwarded to the union President. The Government further contends that neither the CNSM nor the trade union federation SANATATEA has received any request for an objective complex and multilateral investigation of the reasons for the mass withdrawal of membership. According to the Government, it is regrettable that the CNSM submitted a complaint to the ILO without an objective internal investigation and without elucidating all the circumstances or ensuring a procedure based on the principle of adversarial arguments and actions of the parties involved in this dispute.
8. 638. Concerning the alleged lack of guarantees for persons elected to trade union bodies, put forward by the complainant, the Government considers these unfounded as the legislation contains explicit rules providing guarantees for union members in Chapter V of the Trade Union Law and sections 387 and 388 of the Labour Code.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 639. The Committee observes that the National Trade Union Confederation of Moldova (CNSM) alleges insufficient protection, both in law and in practice, against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, and the Government’s unwillingness to address such practices.
2. 640. Regarding the legislative aspect of the complaint, the Committee notes the allegations that section 61 of the Contravention Code, which sanctions interference in trade union activities, is limited to two practices only (interference in the establishment of trade unions and preventing workers from joining trade unions), thus failing to address other acts of interference by employers or persons in a position of responsibility (such as acts aimed at dismantling a trade union through coercion, threats or bribery), and that the amount of these sanctions is insufficient to have a dissuasive effect (ranging from US$85 to US$119). The complainant further alleges that the Government unjustifiably delayed consideration of legislative amendments proposed to this effect by the CNSM and thus failed to implement the Committee’s previous recommendations in Case No. 2317 to provide for fairly severe sanctions for anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee notes that the Government, for its part, contests these allegations, claiming that States have discretion to define the nature and range of penalties for anti-union discrimination and interference while ensuring that they contribute to restoring social equity, correcting the offender and deterring future illegal actions and that acts, which are not covered by section 61 (coercion, threat, bribery) could be covered by other penal provisions. The Committee notes that the Government nevertheless expresses its openness to improving the legislation on contraventions, also reiterated during the June 2025 discussion of the application by the Republic of Moldova of Convention No. 98 at the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (Conference Committee), and adds that, contrary to what the complainant alleges, the majority of the proposals made by the CNSM to amend section 61 were actually incorporated in the consolidated project to amend the Contravention Code which is at the final stage of the drafting and should be adopted after the investiture of the new parliament. The Committee observes in this regard that the draft amendments to section 61 shared by the Government seem to reflect those proposed by the complainant, except a paragraph on repeated violations that had been proposed but not retained in the draft. The Committee understands that these amendments would broaden the scope of section 61 of the Contravention Code to stipulate penalties for a wider range of anti-union practices than what is currently provided for in the law and would also substantially raise the amount of the applicable fines. It further notes, from the Government’s observations, that the most representative workers’ and employers’ organizations were consulted during the amendment process and had endorsed the draft as an effective framework for the protection of trade union freedom and an important step in addressing interference in trade union and employers’ activities.
3. 641. The Committee wishes to emphasize from the outset that while States have the discretion to determine the nature and scope of sanctions for anti-union discrimination and interference, the sanctions should be sufficiently dissuasive to prevent the repetition of such acts. The Committee recalls in this regard that it previously examined similar allegations of legislative gaps in relation to anti-union discrimination and interference and expressed its expectation that legislative provisions providing for sufficiently dissuasive sanctions would be adopted following full and frank consultations with social partners [see Case No. 2317, 342nd Report, June 2006, paras 861–862]. The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (the Committee of Experts) and the Conference Committee also recommended to the Government to take measures to ensure that workers’ and employers’ organizations enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference in their establishment, functioning or administration, to remedy situations where such interference occurs and to adopt provisions that would significantly strengthen the application of sanctions to acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. In view of the above, the Committee expects the ongoing amendment process of the Contravention Code to be finalized without delay so as to address this long-standing issue and contribute to strengthening the sanctions regime for acts of anti-union interference, in order to ensure that the sanctions cover a wide range of anti-union acts and are sufficiently dissuasive. Given the legislative nature of these matters and considering that the Committee of Experts has already been examining the issue for several years, the Committee requests the Government to provide updates on the amendment of the Contravention Code to the Committee of Experts, to which it refers the legislative aspects of this case.
4. 642. Regarding the concrete allegations of anti-union interference and discrimination at the National Centre, the Committee notes that, according to the complainant, the management intimidated members of the existing trade union to sign standardized letters withdrawing their union membership, often under the threat of dismissal or loss of pay, which led to the collection of 3,826 such letters (out of 4,090 workers) and thus to the dismantling of the existing union and the creation of a new union under the direct control of the administration of the institution – its 16 founding members are representatives of the management. The Committee also observes the complainant’s allegation that those who refused to sign the withdrawal letters were subjected to further intimidation and pressure, including demotion, transfer to other jobs not in line with the workers’ qualifications and threats of pay cuts and dismissal. The Committee notes that the complainant raises concrete allegations of anti-union measures, including the case of the union’s President, Mr Anatol Fortuna, who was demoted after he refused the management’s demand to submit information on the union’s financial means for 2023, claiming this was interference in the union’s activities, and who later felt obliged to resign. While the complainant alleges that the above situation constitutes serious interference in the affairs of the existing trade union and shows inadequate protection of unionists against anti-union measures, the Government contests these allegations claiming that the Labour Code contains explicit guarantees against anti-union treatment of union members and asserts that workers’ withdrawals from the union were voluntary and reflected collective dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency of the union’s governing bodies, including failure to report on the union’s financial expenses, as well as failure to provide financial support to workers in need. At the same time, the Government indicates that an intervention by the public authorities in respect of the alleged influence on the employees’ decision to leave or join the existing trade unions at the establishment in question is, a priori, unacceptable and cannot be legally founded, which appears to corroborate the complainant’s allegation that the labour inspectorate failed to address these incidents, as well as the lack of any decisive action from the Ministry of Labour, despite having discussed the issue on the national platform. The Committee further notes that while the Government refutes the allegations regarding the unlawful creation of the new union, it does not dispute that its founders are representatives of the management and merely states that the law does not establish any prohibitions or incompatibilities regarding the status of founders of a primary trade union and that the legality of the new union was confirmed through its registration and its compliance with the legal procedures. The Government thus considers that the current situation at the National Centre with two unions – the primary union with 7 members and the newly created union with 4,043 members – and 238 workers not being affiliated to any union, actually shows that workers have been fully ensured their constitutional right to free association.
5. 643. In these circumstances, the Committee recalls that respect for the principles of freedom of association requires that employers exercise great restraint in relation to intervention in the internal affairs of trade unions [see Compilation, para. 1192]. Any coercion of workers or trade union officers to revoke their union membership constitutes a violation of the principles of freedom of association, laid down in the relevant Conventions. While further emphasizing that managerial staff should have the right to establish their own associations to defend their interests, which may differ from those of non-managerial workers, the Committee recalls that the intervention by an employer to promote the establishment of a parallel trade union constitutes an act of interference by the employer in the functioning of a workers’ association, which is prohibited under Article 2 of Convention No. 98 [see Compilation, para. 1195]. The Committee also recalls that anti-union discrimination is one of the most serious violations of freedom of association, as it may jeopardize the very existence of trade unions. No person should be dismissed or prejudiced in employment by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, and it is important to forbid and penalize in practice all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment. The Committee considers that the role of the Government in relation to acts of anti-union discrimination and interference is not confined to mediation and conciliation but also includes, where appropriate, investigation and enforcement in order to ensure effective protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference and, in particular, ensure that such acts are identified and remedied, that guilty parties are punished and that such acts do not reoccur in the future [see Compilation, paras 1072, 1075 and 1161].
6. 644. The Committee notes, in this respect, that the Government indicates its readiness to continue to provide a platform for discussion and mediation between the parties, and further notes from the information provided by the Government to the Conference Committee that it had proposed the creation of a joint fact-finding mechanism to impartially examine the allegations and contribute to rebuilding mutual trust among the parties and that, in October 2024, all competent institutions were formally requested to submit explanatory notes concerning the reported events, with the objective of establishing an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the circumstances and responsibilities involved. The Committee expects the initiatives reported by the Government, in particular the proposal to create a fact-finding mechanism, to enable the Government to shed full light on the reported incidents of anti-union discrimination and interference in trade union affairs at the National Centre and to take the necessary measures to address these serious allegations. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the concrete allegations of anti-union discrimination against members and leaders of the primary trade union are examined promptly, so that the necessary remedies, where applicable, can be really effective. The Committee also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the labour inspectorate has all tools at its disposal to ensure adequate protection against anti-union discrimination and interference in practice.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 645. In the light of its foregoing conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee expects the ongoing amendment process of the Contravention Code to be finalized without delay so as to address this long-standing issue and contribute to strengthening the sanctions regime for acts of anti-union interference, in order to ensure that the sanctions cover a wide range of anti-union acts and are sufficiently dissuasive. The Committee requests the Government to provide updates on the amendment of the Contravention Code to the Committee of Experts, to which it refers the legislative aspects of this case.
   • (b) The Committee expects the initiatives reported by the Government, in particular the proposal to create a fact-finding mechanism, to enable the Government to shed full light on the reported incidents of anti-union discrimination and interference in trade union affairs at the National Centre and to take the necessary measures to address these serious allegations. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the concrete allegations of anti-union discrimination against members and leaders of the primary trade union are examined promptly, so that the necessary remedies, where applicable, can be really effective. The Committee also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the labour inspectorate has all tools at its disposal to ensure adequate protection against anti-union discrimination and interference in practice.
   • (c) The Committee considers that this case does not call for further examination and is closed.