Caso individual (CAS) - Discusión: 2011, Publicación: 100ª reunión CIT (2011)

Convenio sobre el derecho de sindicación y de negociación colectiva, 1949 (núm. 98) - Belarús (Ratificación : 1956)

The Government communicated the following written information concerning measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Conference Committee and the Commission of Inquiry since the last examination of this case by the Conference Committee in June 2010. Over the past few years, the Government of the Republic of Belarus has been taking consistent and targeted steps to promote social dialogue in the country. In 2010, a tripartite Working Group, including representatives of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU), was established to draft a General Agreement for 2011–13. This Agreement was signed on 30 December 2010. The chapter of the General Agreement concerning interaction between the parties contains a number of provisions aimed at further development of social dialogue and tripartism in the Republic of Belarus. In particular, the parties to the General Agreement have committed themselves to: building their relations on the basis of the principles of social partnership set forth in the legislation of the Republic of Belarus and the ILO Conventions ratified by the Republic of Belarus; promoting collective bargaining and improving the functioning of sectoral and local councils for labour and social issues; consulting on the development and implementation of socio-economic policies; and taking all the necessary measures to prevent collective labour disputes in the social sphere and foster their settlement. In accordance with its provisions, the General Agreement is applicable to all employers (employers’ organizations), trade unions (trade union associations) and workers of the Republic of Belarus. The two trade union associations acting in the Republic of Belarus (the FPB and the CDTU) can thus benefit from the guarantees stipulated in the General Agreement regardless of their representativeness. Guided by the spirit of cooperation embodied in the General Agreement, the Government decided to restore preferential rental treatment for trade unions. According to the Presidential Decree of 5 November 2010 (No. 569), a reduction multiplier of 0.1 is applied to the basic rental rates for premises rented by trade unions, regardless of their affiliation. Thus, the rental fee is ten times less. This decision was welcomed by all trade unions.

A tripartite Working Group whose establishment was approved at the meeting of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere on 14 May 2010, began its work in October 2010. The Working Group includes six persons – two representatives from each party, i.e. the Government, employers’ organizations and the trade union associations (the FPB and the CDTU). When necessary, the parties are entitled to invite experts and other stakeholders to take part in the Group’s meetings. The Working Group promotes joint efforts of the social partners to elaborate agreed approaches for the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry as concerns registration. In this respect, the Government recalls that the Commission of Inquiry recommended to remove any obstacles related to the legal address requirement and explains that legal address is an address of premises where the governing body of the trade union is located. In this respect, republican-level trade unions and their organizational structures at regional and district levels do not experience any difficulties since their addresses are not bound to any particular enterprise. Primary trade union organizations, however, seek to have a legal address in the territory of an enterprise where their members work (although no such requirement is established by the legislation and some primary organizations have a legal address outside the enterprise). By providing a primary trade union organization with premises for the purpose of legal address, the employer recognizes it as a partner in the social dialogue including collective bargaining. Thus, the legal address issue is a matter of recognition of a primary trade union organization as a social partner by the employer. As a rule, larger trade unions that can put serious pressure on the employer solve the issue of premises in their favour. It is more difficult to settle this matter for trade union organizations with smaller membership. In order to settle the issue of legal address, the Government suggested that options for an agreement with social partners concerning the provisions of premises be elaborated by the tripartite Working Group. For example, such an agreement could become a part of the General Agreement for 2011–13. In addition, it was proposed to ask the ILO to provide assistance in this matter.

During the 310th Session of the Governing Body (March 2011), the Government and the ILO agreed to hold a tripartite seminar with the participation of the ILO. Following consultations with the ILO, the seminar was scheduled to be held on 13 May 2011. Although the tripartite Working Group has been working actively in March and April 2011 and four meetings of the Working Group with participation of all the stakeholders were held on 3 and 17 March and on 22 and 29 April 2011, the process of reconciling the positions of all the parties has not been completed yet. It was therefore decided to postpone the seminar. The Government together with the social partners and the Office will continue its work in this respect. The Government of the Republic of Belarus continues its work aimed at establishing constructive relations with all the social partners and developing cooperation with the International Labour Office, thus reaffirming its sustainable commitment to social dialogue and tripartism.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative stated that the tripartite National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI) had put the elaboration of the new General Agreement on its agenda. A tripartite working group had been set up to work on the General Agreement with the participation of all large trade unions, including the FPB) and the CDTU. The General Agreement had been signed on 30 December 2010 and covered all employers’ and workers’ organizations so that both large trade unions could benefit from the guarantees provided therein. The General Agreement laid down several provisions on the promotion of social dialogue and tripartism. Thus, the parties committed themselves under the General Agreement to strengthen their relationship according to the principles of social dialogue as enshrined in national legislation and the ILO Conventions, to promote the conclusion of collective bargaining agreements, to undertake consultations on the implementation of national economic and social policy and to take the necessary steps to prevent labour disputes. In March 2011, it had been decided to hold on 13 May a tripartite seminar in Minsk with the participation of all interested parties and the ILO. Agreement had been reached that all questions relating to the preparation of the seminar would be discussed in the tripartite working group. On the day following the seminar, a meeting of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere with ILO representatives had been scheduled to discuss the issues of registration and trade union pluralism at enterprise level, taking into account the outcome of the seminar. After several meetings of the tripartite working group and the adoption of a draft seminar programme by the social partners, the CDTU had withdrawn on 29 April its support for the programme although it included agenda items concerning registration and trade union pluralism at enterprise level. It was worth noting in this regard that nearly all disputes relating to collective bargaining agreements in enterprises were due to the fact that national legislation contained no requirements concerning trade union representativeness. Given that the Government did not wish to carry out the seminar without the CDTU, it had been decided to postpone the activity. The Government representative called on all social partners to act sensibly and come to an agreement. The Government would continue to collaborate with the ILO with a view to holding the seminar. In conclusion, the Government had taken steps to develop social dialogue and tripartism by strengthening the institutions of social dialogue, by including the CDTU in the NCLSI where it was currently actively participating, and by treating the FPB (4 million members) and the CDTU (10,000 members) on an equal footing without regard to representativeness. Mindful that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had not yet been fully met, the Government was willing, despite the difficult economic situation, to pursue its cooperation with the ILO, to focus its efforts even more on relating positively with all social partners, to comply with its obligations under the General Agreement and to continue to take consistent steps towards a generalized social dialogue that would benefit all parties.

The Employer members recalled that this case had been discussed by the Committee for the past ten years under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), inter alia as a follow-up to the Commission of Inquiry, and that it was the first time that the case was discussed under this Convention. Given the fact that the statement by the Government was principally based on the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry and did not address the issues covered by this Convention, he emphasized the narrower focus of Convention No. 98 and thanked the Committee of Experts for helping the Conference Committee to concentrate on just a few of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations. As regards the concerns expressed by the Committee of Experts on the allegations of the continuing – and apparently increasing – discriminatory use of fixed-term contracts for anti-union purposes, the Government should prevent this from happening by putting in place legal as well as practical measures. The Employer members requested the Government to provide specific information, in a subsequent report to the Committee of Experts, on the situation of a member of the Belarus Independent Trade Union (BITU) as well as on allegations of interference in trade union affairs at several plants where workers were represented by BITU, and to indicate if these issues were on the agenda of the NCLSI. As regards the issue of collective bargaining where there were multiple unions in the workplace, the organization of a seminar – which had had to be postponed – was a step to create some understanding. But, fundamentally, the Government had focused its interventions on the overall issue of freedom of association and might have lost sight of anti-union activities that also needed to be addressed within the framework of an overall regime regarding the right to organize and collective bargaining.

The Worker members, referring to the double footnote to the Committee of Experts’ observation, said that the end of the serious violations of freedom of association in Belarus was nowhere in sight. One of the most serious problems was the unquestionable discrimination against the members of free and independent trade unions, who continued to be threatened with dismissal or non-renewal of their fixed-term contracts. Presidential Decree No. 29 of 1999, which authorized one-year contracts for all types of workers, had been extensively used to discriminate against members of independent unions, and the new Decree No. 164 of 31 March 2010 had not put an end to the practice. Authorizing employers to offer indefinite contracts to workers with at least five years’ seniority who observed discipline at work once again gave free rein to anti-union pressure and discrimination for this five-year period. The seven trade unionists whose reinstatement in their jobs the Government had announced in December 2009 had had their dismissal confirmed on appeal on 21 May 2010. In a clear sign that there had been no progress in the matter, the Government had made no mention of that fact or of the anti-union pressure exerted in the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, nor had it said anything about the climate of anti-union discrimination in the country at large. Another very painful issue was that of collective bargaining in enterprises where there was more than one trade union. True, the Government had reported the signing on 30 December 2010 of a General Agreement for 2011–13 which, based as it was on the principles of social dialogue embodied in national labour laws and ILO Conventions, did cover collective bargaining. The very rudiments of collective bargaining were not yet in place however. To begin with, anti-union discrimination continued to exist. Moreover, the system of registration of trade unions was still strictly regulated. For example, unions were required to provide a legal address, and yet primary trade unions could only acquire such an address if they were recognized as a counterpart by the employer. That meant that registration was dependent on the arbitrary decision of the employer. Finally, with the presence of the CDTU on the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere and various working groups, Belarus was experiencing the beginnings of a fragile process of social dialogue. Yet independent trade unions were still confined in a ghetto both in law and in practice, a situation that was not going to end so long as the points raised previously remained unresolved. That in turn presupposed the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Worker member of Belarus stated that the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry continued to have a positive effect on the Government’s actions to promote social dialogue. All trade unions, whether large or small, including the CDTU, had been afforded the possibility to participate in social dialogue within various national bodies, to have representatives in the NCLSI, to work on the elaboration of the General Agreement and to participate in the tripartite working group dealing with the issue of trade union registration. The rental costs for trade union premises had been significantly reduced and were currently cheaper than for any other organizations. All trade unions enjoyed the rights and guarantees necessary for collective bargaining, and, depending on whether there was a union representing the majority of workers in the company, there were enterprises where only one collective agreement was signed, and others with several collective agreements in force. Moreover, despite a new requirement to ensure that long-term employment contracts were not concluded for a definite period of time, employers sometimes succeeded in putting pressure on workers to accept fixed-term contracts. The speaker concluded that the Government was genuinely trying to find solutions to the existing problems of application and to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. There was no anti-union atmosphere, and several issues remained to be addressed in the NCLSI or through direct negotiations. He urged the whole trade union movement to work together with the FPB in this regard, and with reference to the CDTU, he regretted that this had not always been the case in practice. Finally, the Committee should take account of the real situation and give the Government the opportunity to persevere in its efforts. The ILO should continue to cooperate with the Government with a view to holding the postponed seminar.

The Government member of Hungary, speaking on behalf of the Governments of Member States of the European Union (EU) attending the Conference, as well as the candidate countries (Croatia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Iceland), and potential candidate countries (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia), and Norway, reiterated the deep concern of the EU that the application of the principles of the right to organize and to bargain collectively was still not guaranteed in Belarus. While welcoming the establishment of a tripartite working group to prepare the new General Agreement for 2011–13, the speaker proposed to further strengthen the tripartite cooperation by using the NCLSI to discuss in substance the issue of the violation of trade union rights. This question remained exceptionally timely given the high number of violations of trade union rights and the anti-union discrimination acts that the CDTU continued to face. The freedom of trade unions to carry out their activities was still not guaranteed and the discriminatory use of fixed-term contracts for anti-union purposes continued. Regrettably, the new Presidential Decree No. 164 of 31 March 2010 had not solved the problem. The speaker called on the Government of Belarus to ensure that all complaints of interference and anti-union discrimination be thoroughly investigated and perpetrators punished as the case may be. The Government should intensify its efforts to ensure full implementation of the Convention and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry without delay, in close collaboration with all social partners and with the assistance of the ILO. Finally, the speaker expressed serious concerns about the human rights situation in Belarus which had significantly deteriorated since the violations of electoral standards in the presidential elections of 19 December 2010. The presence of political prisoners in the heart of Europe in the twenty-first century was unacceptable. The situation, including the intensified repressive measures against human rights defenders, members of the media and the democratic opposition, despite repeated calls from the international community, constituted serious violations of numerous international commitments undertaken by Belarus.

The Government member of Switzerland said that her Government concurred with the statement made on behalf of the governments of Member States of the European Union.

The Employer member of Belarus stated that the measures taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry had been effective and that, although there had been some difficulties, the process had generally been positive. The creation of the working group within the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere had contributed to the rapprochement of the position of the parties, and a compromise had been reached with the trade unions at the national level and with the various branches. The CDTU had now been working for five years on an equal footing with other unions in the NCLSI. In addition, the CDTU had participated, with others, towards the adoption of a general agreement for a period of three years. Moreover, the speaker indicated that employers had complied with the labour legislation in cases of the dismissal of union members. Agreement had not been reached on all points, and the ILO’s support and technical assistance was essential in this regard. The employers of Belarus were in favour of the joint resolution of these problems, including through the participation in tripartite seminars on these issues. However, all of this had to be set in a context of the economic problems facing the country. Since 2007, Belarus had been struggling due to the withdrawal of the European Union Generalized System of Preferences which had had an impact on the population as a whole as well as on private enterprises in the country. The employers of Belarus supported the full normalization of the relations between the European Union and Belarus, and hoped that the ILO could help in lifting the restrictions imposed. Hopefully, the ILO would take a realistic approach, not only in the interest of business but also for the country as a whole.

An observer representing the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) indicated that the expected changes in Belarus had not taken place and that measures had not been taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Pressure against joining trade unions through dismissals and anti-union discrimination continued. Moreover, the changes envisioned by the Government to the labour legislation was a cause for concern and the removal of references to ILO Conventions as sources of law exacerbated the labour issues in the country. There had been no measures taken to address the registration of independent trade unions, and setting up new organizations would not lead to independent trade unions if this problem was not resolved. In addition, the CDTU had not been given a reduction for the renting of premises. Turning to the general agreement, the speaker emphasized that this would not solve the problems of trade unions in the country, as these organizations continued to be segregated. He expressed the hope that the problem of the registration of trade unions would be solved, but indicated that the Government holding seminars on this issue did not amount to sufficient political will in this regard. Belarusian workers remained deprived of the inalienable right to set up independent trade unions and of their choice to become a member thereof, and measures were needed to move towards the full respect of workers’ rights.

The Government member of India noted the systematic approach adopted by the Government of Belarus with regard to implementing the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry. The development of tripartite dialogue, the promotion of ILO standards and the protection of trade union rights constituted some of the encouraging initiatives undertaken by the Government to give effect to Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The general agreement signed in 2010, which the Government had formulated through social dialogue, provided a useful plan of action for the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The speaker emphasized that the constructive engagement and cooperation of the Government with the ILO and the progress that had been made in observing the Convention were important achievements.

The Government member of the United States regretted the paucity of substantial progress by the Government of Belarus in implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. This was especially troubling given the detail with which this situation has been examined throughout the ILO supervisory system, and the extent to which the Office had provided its support. With respect to the application of the Convention, the Committee of Experts had expressed serious concern about the allegations of anti-union discrimination, threats, harassment and interference in internal trade union affairs. If violations of trade unions’ rights were indeed increasing, it was all the more disappointing that these issues were not being adequately addressed by the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere. The Government should take, without further delay, the necessary measures to ensure that the right to organize and bargain collectively was effectively guaranteed both in law and in practice. She encouraged the Government to work closely with its social partners and to hold regular consultations with the ILO so that the Committee of Experts would be in a position to confirm substantive, concrete and sustainable achievements at its next session. Considering her Government’s long-standing commitment to enhancing democracy, the rule of law and respect of human rights in Belarus, she looked forward to the day when the right to organize and bargaining collectively would be a reality in Belarus.

The Government member of the Russian Federation emphasized the evident progress made by the Government in the implementation of the Convention and of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. A constructive dialogue had been developed with all the social partners. A general agreement had been concluded for the period 2011–13 and provided, among other measures, for the development of social dialogue in the country. Tripartite seminars had been organized in collaboration with the Office and a plan of action had been adopted with a view to ensuring the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere was empowered to examine the necessary measures for that purpose, as well as complaints from trade unions. Its composition had been modified, and it included representatives of the Government, the trade unions and employers. It had already examined issues relating to the registration of trade unions, complaints lodged by unions and the prospects for the development of the legislation respecting unions. A number of questions still needed to be resolved, such as the facilitation of the registration procedure for unions. A tripartite working group had been established for that purpose and had begun work in October 2010. As a result of this tripartite interaction, the Government had made significant progress in the implementation of the Convention and the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Government was taking tangible measures, which demonstrated its good will in that respect.

The Government member of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela emphasized the positive aspects, which had to be taken into account in the case of Belarus. This signified progress with respect to the discussions that had taken place in the Committee in 2010. The specific, coherent measures adopted by the Government to continue to promote and implement social dialogue should not be overlooked, such as the establishment of the working group that had developed the general agreement, which had been signed in December 2010 and that applied to everyone in the country. In the context of that agreement, the Government had highlighted the preferential treatment given to trade unions regarding the cost of leasing union premises, the rent for which had been reduced to a tenth of its real value. Furthermore, the tripartite working group had been working since October 2010 to establish methods to enable implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations concerning the registration and legal domicile of trade unions, and technical assistance from the ILO was planned in this regard. Note was also taken of the planned tripartite seminar with the participation of the ILO, which indicated that progress was continuing with regard to social dialogue in the country. In conclusion, in view of the achievements so far and the ongoing technical assistance from the ILO, sufficient time was required to allow specific measures to be taken with a view to applying the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations.

The Government member of China emphasized that since June 2008 the Government of Belarus had engaged in cooperation with the ILO and had made remarkable progress in its work to ensure conformity with regard to its obligations under the Convention, including by the conclusion of a general agreement, the allocation of premises to trade unions at very favourable rents and the establishment of tripartite groups especially to discuss the issue of trade union registration. It was important to acknowledge the sincerity of the efforts of the Government in conjunction with the social partners and to allow sufficient time. The speaker expressed the hope that the ILO would strengthen its cooperation with the Government.

The Government member of Cuba emphasized the positive role of ILO technical assistance in developing the measures taken for the implementation of the Convention. The Government had made significant efforts to establish constructive relations, maintain dialogue with all the social partners and work in close collaboration with the ILO. The Government’s political will had been demonstrated by the agreement to hold a tripartite seminar with a view to the effective implementation of the Convention. The continuation of technical assistance was therefore to be encouraged, together with open and unconditional dialogue and the analysis of the internal situation with a view to achieving the objectives of the Convention.

The Government member of Canada shared the serious concerns expressed by the Committee of Experts regarding the increasing violations of trade union rights and the continued suffering by trade union members from discrimination, including dismissals, non-renewal of labour contracts, threats, pressure and harassment. The continued interference of enterprise managers in the internal affairs of trade unions was also of concern. The Government should investigate these allegations and ensure that violations were remedied and perpetrators punished. The Government should further intensify its efforts to ensure full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry without delay, with the assistance of the ILO. Her Government urged the Government of Belarus to strengthen social dialogue and use the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere as a mechanism for meeting its commitments under the Convention.

The Worker member of Poland recalled that the Committee had, at its last session, trusted the Government to undertake specific measures to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and to submit information on amendments proposed to specific national legislation. Unfortunately, the situation had not changed in law or in practice with regard to the respect of human and workers’ rights or the protection of independent trade unions’ activities. These unions still faced obstacles in registering, the main obstacle for conducting trade union activities. Moreover, the number of violations of trade union rights had been increasing and members of independent trade unions still suffered from anti-union discrimination, including dismissals, the non-renewal of contracts, pressure and harassment, in addition to interference in internal trade union affairs. The Presidential Decree No. 164 (to improve the contract-based scheme of employment) had not solved the problem of pressure on independent trade unions, as members of these unions at many companies were forced to leave their union under the threat of non-renewal of their employment contracts. Short-term contracts also limited workers’ rights to free choice of employment, including the right to not be deprived of work unfairly. The speaker underlined that the Government was expected to: (i) improve legal and administrative measures to ensure that workers enjoyed the rights enshrined in the Convention without any discrimination in law and in practice and implement fully the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry; (ii) provide real and equal opportunities for workers to establish trade unions of their own choosing; (iii) eliminate obstacles to registration of independent trade union organizations; (iv) immediately stop the harassment and discrimination, particularly through the use of short-term contracts, against members of independent trade union organizations; (v) ensure that enterprise managers did not interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions; and (vi) instruct the Prosecutor General, the Minister of Justice and the court administrators that all complaints of interference and anti-union discrimination be thoroughly investigated and that measures be taken to punish those responsible. Lastly, she urged the Government to ensure that all allegations of anti-union discrimination be brought to the attention of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere.

The Government representative thanked those who had spoken in the debate, particularly the Government members who had supported her country’s position. The Government was willing to accept constructive criticism and was open to dialogue and an examination of all the matters raised. The content of the discussion would be analysed thoroughly and efforts would be made to implement the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations. Some issues had yet to be resolved and for that reason the Government would continue towards the development of social dialogue and tripartism. However, it was incorrect to state that the Government was putting pressure on trade union leaders. No cases concerning wrongful dismissals or pressure had been brought before the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, which had full power to examine such matters. Moreover, the labour inspection services were operating actively and had conducted inquiries into any violations of labour legislation. There were very few of the latter, however, as far as trade union rights were concerned. Furthermore, under the Labour Code, employment contracts could be for an indefinite duration or for a fixed term. Fixed-term contracts contained a number of advantages for workers, especially in terms of wages. They were concluded for between one and five years, which was not a short period, contrary to what had been said. The parties freely chose the type of contract that they wished to conclude. By concluding a fixed-term contract, they recognized that the employment relationship ended on expiry of the contract. That practice existed throughout the world and the ending of the employment relationship on expiry of a fixed-term contract was never considered to constitute dismissal. Labour relations depended heavily on trust between the parties and it was to be hoped that the social partners, including the CDTU would adopt a positive attitude. The speaker emphasized that it was the Government that had taken the initiative to organize a tripartite seminar. The Government thanked the ILO and the workers’ organizations which had supported the process and expressed the hope that an agreed position would be worked out shortly with all the social partners in order to resolve the issues relating to trade union registration. The Government was committed to the ILO fundamental principles and was ready to take the necessary steps, with the social partners and the ILO, to ensure their implementation in the country.

The Employer members noted that contract work was a complicated issue and that fixed-term contracts could be used in a manner that led to arbitrary practices. Therefore, a report from the Government was needed containing information on the context in which such labour contracts were used, to evaluate if such contracts were used against the requirements of the Convention. They indicated that the conclusions adopted by the Committee should urge the Government to address specifically the issue of anti-union discrimination, and that these questions should be brought to the attention of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere. As information had not been provided on possible employer interference with trade union activities, more information was required on the law and practice in this respect. Complaints of this nature should be investigated, and if the allegations were verified, punished. The Government needed to provide the Committee of Experts with a report on these actions, in addition to steps taken to address the collective bargaining issues and the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. Recalling that the Government had previously taken steps in this regard, they urged the Government to pick up the pace to become in full compliance with the Convention, as well as Convention No. 87, in law and in practice.

The Worker members observed that, once again, the Government of Belarus had not made sufficient progress in amending its laws and practice as it had been asked to do for years by this Committee, the Commission of Inquiry and the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Government representative had not explained how the new general agreement for 2011–13 was going to change the labour situation, prevent interference by employers, combat anti-union discrimination and organize collective bargaining with the participation of all trade unions at every level. She had given no information on the reinstatement of trade unionists in their jobs after they had been dismissed, as had been announced in 2010. On the contrary, the workers concerned had subsequently had their dismissal confirmed by the courts. A small step forward had admittedly been taken with the invitation of the BITU to engage in a national social dialogue and with the restoration of certain operating facilities for all unions. Nevertheless there was still a very long way to go before all forms of anti-union discrimination in law and in practice could be eliminated and before workers were able to establish and join trade unions of their own choosing. That was why the Worker members insisted that the Government take the following steps forthwith: revision of the system of temporary contracts, or at least putting an end to their abusive use; elimination of all existing obstacles to the registration of new trade unions; cessation of all interference by company managers in the internal affairs of trade unions; and the issuing of an instruction to the Public Prosecutor, the Minister of Justice and the judiciary to examine thoroughly all complaints of interference or discrimination and to punish those responsible. Before the next session of the Committee of Experts, the Government should also submit a report containing all relevant information on allegations of discrimination, on the adoption of measures to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and on the activities of tripartite bodies. Assistance of the Office in explaining the scope of the Convention would be welcome.

Conclusions

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

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative in relation to the developments since the discussion of this case last year. In particular, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that a General Agreement for 2011–2013, covering all employers’ and workers’ organizations in the country, was signed on 30 December 2010 and that, guided by the spirit of cooperation embodied in this agreement, the Government had decided to restore preferential rental treatment for all trade unions. The Committee further took note of the information on the work of a tripartite working group set up by the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere in May 2010.

The Committee noted with regret that no substantial progress had been made by the Government towards implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry since the discussion of this case last year, nor specifically as regards the concerns raised by the experts under the Convention.

The Committee further noted with regret new allegations of violations of freedom of association in the country, including allegations of interference in trade union activities, pressure and harassment. In particular, the Committee took note of the allegations of the use of fixed-term contracts to pressure workers into withdrawing their membership from the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) and its affiliated organizations.

Observing the Government’s reference to the question of representativeness of trade unions and its refraining from addressing this point as asked by the ILO, the Committee wishes to recall that the concerns in this regard relate to the fact that the determination of trade union representativeness cannot be meaningful until the Government first puts in place the measures necessary to ensure full respect for the freedom of association rights of all workers, both in law and in practice. Such measures include the necessary legislative framework for the registration of freely chosen workers’ organizations and a climate which ensures their effective recognition and the promotion of their collective bargaining rights. The Committee recalls in this respect the importance which it attaches to the need to guarantee the basic civil liberties of workers and employers and the intrinsic link between democracy and freedom of association.

The Committee urged the Government to intensify its efforts to ensure that freedom of association was fully and effectively guaranteed in law and in practice without delay and expressed the firm hope that the Government would continue its cooperation with the ILO and the social partners to this effect. It expected that the Government would submit, after an independent and impartial investigation, detailed observations on the allegations of anti-union discrimination, including as regards the anti-union impact of fixed-term contracts and employer interference in workers’ organization, as well as information on any proposed amendments to the legislation to the Committee of Experts at its meeting this year. It trusted that the Government would provide substantive and concrete information in this regard as a demonstration of its political will to implement the Commission of Inquiry Recommendations and thus enable this Committee to be able to note significant and sustainable progress with respect to all remaining matters at its meeting next year.