Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2024, Publication: 112nd ILC session (2024)

Special sitting concerning the application by Belarus of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), in application of the resolution adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 111th Session (2023)

Written information provided by the Government

In accordance with the Constitution of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Government of Belarus informed the Director-General of the International Labour Office of its position in relation to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry in a letter dated 1 November 2004, from the Minister of Labour and Social Protection, Ms A.P. Morova, noting that it would take steps towards their implementation, taking into account the realities of the Republic of Belarus and its sovereign interests.

In view of its stated position, the Government of Belarus has taken a number of specific, targeted steps, as a result of which at this stage a significant number of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations have been implemented and substantial progress has been made in implementing the remainder.

Recommendation 1

• The Commission recommends that the Government take all necessary steps for the immediate registration of all those primary level union organizations listed in the complaint which have still not been registered, including, if necessary, by directing enterprise managers to provide premises to those organizations. These steps should be taken regardless of the supposed obstacles to their registration caused by Decree No. 2 and its rules and regulations.

The Government of the Republic of Belarus has taken targeted measures to liberalize the trade union registration process.

In accordance with the procedure established by law for establishing a trade union and submitting to registration bodies all necessary information and documentation, the registration procedure is essentially an administrative formality.

In order to simplify and formalize the procedure for registering public associations (including trade unions), Presidential Decree of the Republic of Belarus No. 605 of 6 October 2006 abolished the National Commission for the Registration (Re-registration) of Public Associations.

All powers to register trade unions at the national level are vested in the Ministry of Justice, while powers to register territorial trade unions and trade unions established in the country’s organizations and enterprises are vested in the relevant justice directorates of local executive and administrative bodies (regional executive committees and the Minsk City Executive Committee).

In accordance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, measures have been taken to abolish the requirement that at least 10 per cent of the total number of an organization’s employees must be included in the membership in order to establish a trade union.

Thus, on 2 June 2015, Presidential Decree of the Republic of Belarus No. 4 on Amendments and Additions to the Presidential Decree of the Republic of Belarus was adopted, which amended Presidential Decree of the Republic of Belarus No. 2 of 26 January 1999 on Several Measures to Improve the Functioning of Political Parties, Trade Unions, and Other Public Associations.

With the adoption of Presidential Decree of the Republic of Belarus No. 4 of 2 June 2015, at least 10 people are required to establish a trade union at an enterprise.

To date, at the level of legislation and practice, everything necessary has been done to ensure that trade unions (their organizational structures) successfully undergo the state registration procedure.

When state bodies examine the documents submitted for state registration of trade unions and their organizational structures, and in other cases involving decisions that affect the right of citizens to form trade unions, the decisions are taken in strict accordance with legislation in force, as well as based on the principle of maximum consideration of the interests and rights of citizens and trade unions.

In order to increase the chances of obtaining a legal address, trade unions have been given the opportunity to be located not only at the employer’s address, but also in any other place (non-residential premises are used for the legal address).

Practice shows that, to date, the need to confirm the existence of a legal address has not been an obstacle to the registration of trade unions.

Cases of refusal of state registration of trade unions (trade union organizational structures) are isolated in nature and are for objective reasons.

The main reasons for refusal are failure to comply with legislation concerning the procedure for establishing trade union organizations and submitting all necessary information and documentation to the registration authorities.

If the procedure for establishing a trade union organization is observed, the documents for state registration of the trade union (organizational structure of the trade union) may be resubmitted to the registration authorities after all the identified shortcomings are addressed.

In this respect, refusal to register does not amount to a ban on establishing a trade union (organizational structure thereof) and does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle to subsequent registration.

Trade unions (organizational structures thereof) successfully undergo the state registration procedure, subject to the establishment of a trade union in accordance with legislation and submission of all supporting documents to the registration authorities.

Recommendation 1 has been essentially implemented.

Recommendation 2

• The Commission recommends that the Government amend the relevant provisions of Decree No. 2 and its rules and regulations so as to eliminate any further obstacles that might be caused either by the legal address requirement or by the 10 per cent minimum membership requirement at enterprise level and to ensure their transparency.

In accordance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry on eliminating obstacles to establishing and registering trade unions, the Government has taken measures to abolish the mandatory 10 per cent minimum trade union membership requirement for the establishment of a trade union.

On 2 June 2015, Presidential Decree of the Republic of Belarus No. 4 on Amendments and Additions to the Presidential Decree of the Republic of Belarus was adopted, which amended Presidential Decree of the Republic of Belarus No. 2 of 26 January 1999 on Several Measures to Improve the Functioning of Political Parties, Trade Unions, and Other Public Associations.

With the adoption of Presidential Decree of the Republic of Belarus No. 4 of 2 June 2015, at least 10 people are required to establish a trade union at an enterprise.

In order to increase the chances of obtaining a legal address, trade unions have been given the opportunity to be located not only at the employer’s address, but also in any other place (non-residential premises are used for the legal address).

Practice shows that, to date, the need to confirm the existence of a legal address has not been an obstacle to the registration of trade unions.

Recommendation 2 has been implemented.

Recommendation 3

• The Commission is of the belief that many of the difficulties posed by the application of Decree No. 2 are due to the lack of transparency in the decision-making authority represented by the National Registration Commission. Given that registration should be a routine procedure formalizing the existence of a freely formed workers’ or employers’ organization, the Commission recommends that the National Registration Commission should be disbanded and all registrations should be made as a matter of mere administrative formality at the corresponding local, regional or national level. If necessary, overseeing authority may be vested in the Minister of Justice.

The Government of the Republic of Belarus has taken targeted measures to liberalize the trade union registration process.

In order to simplify and formalize the procedure for registering public associations (including trade unions), Presidential Decree of the Republic of Belarus No. 605 of 6 October 2006 abolished the National Commission for the Registration (Re-registration) of Public Associations.

The Ministry of Justice is responsible for registering national-level trade unions, while the relevant justice directorates of local executive and administrative bodies (regional executive committees and Minsk City Executive Committee) are responsible for registering territorial trade unions and trade unions established in the country’s organizations and enterprises.

The Ministry of Justice closely monitors the situation concerning registration of trade unions and organizational structures thereof, and issues the necessary guidance to the registration authorities to prevent violations.

As part of its outreach efforts, in December 2006 the Ministry of Justice posted on its official website a clarification on trade union membership, stating that, under the law, citizens have the right voluntarily to establish trade unions of their choice, and also to join trade unions, provided that their statutes are observed.

On 31 January 2007, the Ministry of Justice sent a letter of instruction to local authorities indicating the need for strict compliance with the law when registering trade unions.

On 28 September 2022, the Ministry of Justice sent a letter to the regional executive committees and the Minsk City Executive Committee, explaining the issues of state trade union registration and registering trade union organizational structures (in order to ensure that the registration bodies apply a uniform approach to the processing of the documents required for registration).

To date, at the level of legislation and practice, everything necessary has been done in the Republic of Belarus to ensure that trade unions (their organizational structures) successfully undergo the state registration procedure.

When state bodies examine the documents submitted for state registration of trade unions and their organizational structures, and in other cases involving decisions that affect the right of citizens to form trade unions, the decisions are taken in strict accordance with legislation in force, as well as based on the principle of maximum consideration of the interests and rights of citizens and trade unions.

Recommendation 3 has been implemented.

Recommendation 4

• In order to alleviate the damage that has already been done to the independence of the trade union movement in Belarus, the Commission recommends that all its conclusions and recommendations be made public by the Government through a wide dissemination and without delay. In order to ensure the prevention of further acts of interference, the Commission recommends that the Government declare publicly that such acts are unacceptable and will be sanctioned. To this end, it highly recommends that the Presidential Administration issue instructions to the Prosecutor-General, the Minister of Justice and court administrators that any complaints of external interference made by trade unions should be thoroughly investigated. This recommendation, similar to those made on numerous occasions by the Committee on Freedom of Association, but never implemented, should be carried out without any further delay.

The Government of the Republic of Belarus has taken steps to bring the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations to the attention of the general public.

In 2005, the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations were published in the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection’s journal, Occupational Safety and Social Protection (No. 4 of April 2005), and in 2006, in the newspaper, Respublika (No. 209 of 9 November), which was the country’s largest print publication.

As part of the implementation of the recommendations of the direct contact mission (which visited the Republic of Belarus during January 2014), a training course on international labour standards for judges and lawyers was held in Minsk on 20–22 June 2017. This training course contributed to the implementation of Recommendations 4 and 8 of the Commission of Inquiry.

The training course was organized by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, the International Labour Office, and the ILO International Training Centre in Turin for judges and lawyers with competence in labour law cases and issues.

The training course was attended by representatives of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, judges of courts of general jurisdiction, representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor-General, and the prosecutor’s offices of Minsk region and Minsk city.

Course participants were introduced to the ILO’s activities and the system of international labour standards (in particular, those relating to freedom of association, collective bargaining, and the prohibition of forced labour), the structure and work mechanisms of the ILO supervisory bodies, the application of international law and national legislation in labour relations, relevant jurisprudence, as well as examples of the application of international law in resolving labour disputes.

In the Republic of Belarus, approaches to non-interference in trade union activities are enshrined in legislation and implemented in practice.

Thus, under article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, the State regulates relations between social, national and other communities on the basis of the principles of equality before the law and respect for their rights and interests.

Social and labour relations between state administrative bodies, employers’ associations and trade unions are based on the principles of social partnership and interaction between the parties.

Guarantees of trade union rights are enshrined in Chapter 3 of the Trade Union Act of the Republic of Belarus.

In accordance with article 23 of this Act, employers (associations thereof), state bodies, economic entities, public associations and officials shall respect trade union rights. Such bodies and entities shall be held liable for violating trade union rights or obstructing their lawful activities in accordance with the law.

Under article 26 of the Act, trade union rights shall be protected in accordance with the law. Unlawful restriction of trade union rights and obstruction of the exercise of their powers shall not be permitted.

The principle of the rule of law applies in the Republic, and the State guarantees the rights and freedoms of citizens, as enshrined in the Constitution, the law and international obligations.

Article 60 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus guarantees everyone protection of her/his rights and freedoms by a competent, independent and impartial court in the manner and within the time limits established by law.

Decisions and actions (omissions) of state bodies and officials that infringe on rights and freedoms may be appealed in court.

All court cases are heard in public. Hearings in camera may only be held in cases specified by law, and in accordance with all the rules of legal procedure.

Justice shall be administered on the basis of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms.

Court rulings shall be binding on all citizens and officials.

Parties and persons participating in proceedings have the right to appeal against decisions, sentences and other court rulings.

There are no obstacles to citizens taking cases to court.

See also information on the implementation of Recommendations 7 and 8.

Recommendation 4 has been largely implemented.

Recommendation 5

• All those organizations named in the conclusions as having suffered interference in their internal affairs should be guaranteed protection to carry out their activities freely. Any further complaints made by these organizations in this respect should be taken seriously and immediately investigated by an independent body having the confidence of all parties concerned.

Although the legislation of the Republic of Belarus provides for all necessary measures to protect trade union rights, including the prevention of interference in their internal affairs, Belarus has introduced an additional mechanism for the protection of trade union rights in accordance with the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations.

Thus, in 2005, the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, established under the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, was entrusted with the role of a tripartite independent body, enjoying the confidence of all interested parties.

This body has been empowered to consider the full range of issues arising from the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations, from examining specific situations relating to trade union registration or collective bargaining, to discussing the desirability of legislative changes.

On 21 January 2009, a national tripartite seminar was held in Minsk on the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations on Freedom of Association and Social Partnership in the Republic of Belarus: improvement in the light of the recommendations contained in the Commission of Inquiry’s report, Trade Union Rights in Belarus, organized by the International Labour Office and the Government of the Republic of Belarus to take stock of the work done and discuss further action by the parties.

Based on the conclusions and proposals drawn up during the seminar, the Government, in cooperation with International Labour Office, prepared an Action Plan to implement the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations, supported by representatives of all social partners who participated in the seminar, and approved on 20 February 2009 by the main tripartite body of the Republic of Belarus, the National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI).

The Action Plan provided for further improvement in the effectiveness of the mechanism ensuring the protection of trade union rights (Recommendations 5 and 7). The main role in this mechanism has been assigned to the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere under the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, whose composition and functions were revised and supplemented in the light of the expansion of the range of tasks entrusted to it.

The activities of the updated tripartite Council are organized in accordance with the International Labour Office’s recommendations.

In accordance with the approved Regulations of the Council, this tripartite body shall carry out consultations between representatives of the national bodies of state administration, other state agencies, and national associations of employers and trade unions on the application and improvement of the legislation of the Republic of Belarus on labour, employers’ associations and trade unions, development of the social partnership and compliance with ILO Conventions ratified by the Republic of Belarus.

The Council conducts its work based on transparent and democratic principles, taking into account the interests of all parties involved in its work.

The Council strictly adheres to the approach supported by all social partners- to make decisions and conclusions on the most important issues only on the basis of the agreed position of all Council members. At the same time, all Council members and invitees are free to express their opinions at Council meetings and remain fully independent in forming their own views.

Over the years, the Council has considered a wide variety of issues on the basis of suggestions made by the parties directly relating to the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations and the development of methods and forms of interaction between the social partners, the application and improvement of legislation, the registration of trade union organizations, the exercise of trade union rights, complaints from trade unions and workers of anti-union discrimination, cases of termination of employment contracts, the conclusion of sectoral agreements and collective contracts, the ratification of ILO Conventions and engagement with the International Labour Office in the framework of international technical cooperation.

The Council has been directly involved in resolving a number of disputes that formed the basis of trade union complaints to the ILO.

For example, based on the proposals of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP), the Council’s meetings considered, inter alia, issues relating to:

• - dismissals of workers referred to in the 352nd report of the Committee on Freedom of Association (14 May 2009);
• - registration of trade unions (registration of trade union organizational structures) and granting them a legal address (3 March 2011);
• - observance of trade union rights at the Republican Unitary Enterprise, Babruysk Plant of Tractor Parts and Assemblies, and the Unitary Enterprise, P.M. Masherov Minsk Plant of Automatic Lines (3 March 2011);
• - receipt of foreign gratuitous aid (3 March 2011);
• - the situation with the conclusion of the collective agreement at Open Joint-Stock Company, Naftan (17 May 2012);
• - the situation with the operation of trade unions at the Republican Unitary Industrial Enterprise, Granit (26 March 2013);
• - draft Presidential Decree of the Republic of Belarus aimed at stimulating the employment of citizens (23 January 2015);
• - Presidential Decree of the Republic of Belarus No. 5 of 15 December 2014 on Strengthening the Requirements for the Management Personnel and Employees of Organizations (23 January 2015);
• - observance of trade union rights at Open Joint-Stock Company, Mazyr Oil Refinery, Republican Unitary Enterprise, Babruysk Plant of Tractor Parts and Assemblies, and Open Joint-Stock Company, Belshina (23 January 2015);
• - implementation of paragraph 45 of the General Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and national associations of employers and trade unions for 2016–18, which laid down the procedure for collective bargaining and concluding collective agreements in organizations where several trade unions are represented (18 May 2016);
• - the dismissal of Mr N.A. Sharakh, Deputy Chairperson of the Free Trade Union of Belarus, who worked at Open Joint-Stock Company, Polotsk-Fibreglass, on 30 April 2016, due to the expiry of his contract (18 May 2016);
• - compliance by employers’ associations with paragraph 45 of the General Agreement for 2016–18 (28 February 2017);
• - Bill of the Republic of Belarus on Amendments and Additions to Certain Acts of the Republic of Belarus on Labour Relations (6 March 2018);
• - precedents of non-compliance by employers’ associations with paragraph 45 of the General Agreement for 2016–18 (6 March 2018);
• - taking measures to implement Recommendation 9 of the Commission of Inquiry regarding amendments to Presidential Decree of the Republic of Belarus No. 24 (at that time, Decree No. 5 of 31 August 2015) on Use of Foreign Gratuitous Aid (6 March 2018).

Representatives of the International Labour Office have participated in the Council’s work on several occasions, who, along with Belarusian associations of employers and trade unions, commended the Council’s work and emphasized the importance of its role in the examination and resolution of complaints received from trade unions in accordance with the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations.

As part of the implementation of the proposals of the direct contact mission that visited the Republic of Belarus in January 2014 to monitor the situation with respect to trade union rights in the country and to assist the Government in implementing the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations, a seminar on International Experience of the Work of Tripartite Social Partnership Bodies was held in Minsk on 9–10 July 2014.

The seminar’s aim was to assist the Government and the social partners in developing proposals to improve the effectiveness of the work of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere.

As a result of the seminar and subsequent discussions within the Council, the parties reached an agreed position on amending the Regulations on the Council to further enhance the effectiveness of its work.

The updated version of the Regulations on the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere was approved by Order of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection No. 48 of 8 May 2015.

In accordance with this version of the Regulations, the Council’s powers have been considerably expanded.

In particular, the Council is additionally empowered to analyse existing legislation and draft regulatory and legal acts affecting social and labour relations for their compliance with ILO Conventions and Recommendations and international practice in order to ensure the application of international labour standards at the national level.

The Council is empowered to submit proposals to legislative bodies on the implementation of ILO Conventions and Recommendations in national legislation, and on amending and supplementing labour and trade union regulations in accordance with ILO Recommendations.

The Council has the right to initiate consideration by the NCLSI of proposals regarding amendments and additions to regulatory legal acts on labour and trade unions.

This version of the Regulations also provides for the possibility of more active involvement of international experts, including ILO specialists, in the consideration of issues by the Council.

In order to make the Council’s deliberations more expeditious, provision has been made for the possibility of holding extraordinary meetings.

Thus, the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, coordinated by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, is an effective mechanism for examining trade union communications and protecting trade union rights.

The Council’s work, previously suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic, has resumed this year.

During the Council’s meeting on 26 May 2023, based on the parties’ suggestions, it considered approaches to implementing the Committee on Freedom of Association’s recommendation concerning the establishment of a non-judicial mechanism for settling labour disputes.

Following the discussion of this issue and considering the recommendation of the Committee on Freedom of Association that joint work with the social partners be continued to build an effective non-judicial mechanism for resolving labour disputes, it was decided to establish an expert group from among the Council’s members to examine communications from trade unions (trade union associations) and employers’ associations regarding the resolution of labour disputes. It was decided that when the Council receives communications from trade unions (trade union associations) and employers’ associations concerning labour dispute resolution, the expert group will conduct a preliminary examination and subsequently inform the Council of its findings.

The agenda of the Council’s meeting on 22 September 2023 included proposals for the work plan of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere and information from the International Labour Office on interpreting the provisions of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), concerning the right to strike. There was a discussion by the Council regarding the framework of the implementation of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144).

During the meeting, the parties came to the conclusion that the Council should continue to discuss the issues around collective bargaining regulation at various levels of social partnership.

A discussion was also held on regulating the right to strike in Convention No. 87. It was agreed that, if necessary, each party would independently inform the International Labour Office of its views.

Recommendation 5 has been implemented.

Recommendation 6

• In order to avoid acts of interference occurring at the level of the enterprise, the Commission recommends that a clear instruction be given to all enterprise managers and directors, in cases where they are still trade union members, not to participate in the process of trade union decision-making in as much as such participation might unduly influence internal trade union affairs and, in effect, bring these organizations under management domination.

The Government continuously and systematically monitors interactions between enterprise administrations and trade unions and has made clear its view that enterprise managers should not interfere in the activities of trade union organizations.

At the Government’s initiative, the issue of interaction between representatives of employers and trade unions at the level of organizations (enterprises) was considered at a meeting of the main tripartite social partnership body at the national level, the NCLSI, on 31 January 2007.

The National Council drew the attention of employers’ and trade unions’ representatives to the need for strict observance of the principles of social partnership enshrined in legislation and ILO Conventions ratified by the Republic of Belarus, while noting the inadmissibility of interference by employers in the internal affairs of trade unions, and also recommended that trade unions actively use social partnership mechanisms to protect their rights and those of their members.

Following a decision by the National Council, the established practice of interaction between employers’ and trade unions’ representatives at the level of organizations (enterprises) was discussed during the first half of 2007 at meetings of sectoral and territorial (that is, regional, town/city and district) councils on labour and social issues.

In 2015, work was carried out to implement the areas of cooperation, outlined in the proposals of the direct contact mission (which visited the Republic of Belarus in 2014), on enterprise-level collective bargaining.

Thus, the International Labour Office, together with the Government and social partners, organized a tripartite seminar, Enterprise-level collective bargaining and cooperation in the context of pluralism, which was held in Minsk on 13–14 May 2015.

The seminar was attended by members of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, various representatives of employers’ associations and trade unions (including heads of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus and the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions), and also representatives of a number of enterprises where several trade union organizations are represented.

Following a two-day discussion, moderated by representatives of the International Labour Office, the seminar participants reached conclusions on the inclusion of representatives of all trade union organizations operating at the enterprise level in the collective bargaining commission to be established at the enterprise in question.

Based on the results of the seminar, within the framework of the meetings of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere, the parties developed agreed proposals on the procedure for collective bargaining and concluding collective agreements when there are several trade union organizations in an organization, which were then included in the General Agreements between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and the national associations of employers and trade unions for 2016–18, 2019–21 and 2022–24, and are being implemented in practice.

The drafting of guidelines for enterprise-level collective bargaining and their inclusion at the level of the General Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and national associations of employers and trade unions helped put into practice the principle of trade union pluralism, in line with Recommendations 6 and 12.

Recommendation 6 has been implemented.

Recommendation 7

• The Commission recommends that immediate action be taken to institute independent investigations, having the confidence of all parties concerned, into outstanding complaints of anti-union discrimination, in particular as concerns bias and discriminatory use of fixed-term contracts, and that all damages suffered in this respect be redressed. Any complaints of anti-union discrimination or retaliatory acts as a consequence of cooperation with the Commission and the ILO should be given particular attention.

Taking into account the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations, the Government and social partners have taken steps to examine carefully and resolve situations involving reported cases of alleged anti-union discrimination and non-renewal of fixed-term employment agreements (contracts) with trade union members.

Thus, on the basis of the parties’ proposals, issues relating to the observance of the labour rights of trade union members are examined at meetings of the tripartite Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere.

For example, at the Council meeting held on 14 May 2009, the cases of termination of labour relations with the workers listed in the report of the Committee on Freedom of Association were considered. All the workers in questions were invited to the Council meeting, and the Council reached an agreed decision in each case. As a result of the Council meeting, the dismissed workers were provided with assistance in finding employment, as well as assistance in the restoration of other rights they had lost.

At the initiative of the BKDP the Council meeting of 18 May 2016 considered the dismissal, on 30 April 2016,of Mr N.A. Sharakh, Deputy Chairperson of the Free Trade Union of Belarus, who worked at Open Joint-Stock Company, Polotsk-Fibreglass (Polotsk, Vitebsk region), due to the expiry of his contract.

Following examination of the case, the allegations of the BKDP representatives that the dismissal of Mr N.A. Sharakh was the result of anti-union discrimination were not substantiated: Mr N.A. Sharakh, at his own initiative, had written a resignation letter due to the expiry of his contract and the commencement of his retirement. In view of these circumstances, the Council considered it appropriate to discontinue consideration of the case.

The situation described above can serve as clear evidence that the complaints of the now defunct BKDP and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) of alleged anti-union discrimination in the termination of contracts often lack any objective grounds and are politically motivated.

At the same time, we note that detailed information on the outcome of the examination of complaints received on alleged anti-union discrimination and non-renewal of employee contracts on the grounds of trade union membership have been submitted to the ILO monitoring bodies on several occasions as part of the periodic reports and information from the Government.

We also believe it is necessary to note that the existing legal framework in the Republic of Belarus provides adequate measures to protect citizens from acts of anti-union discrimination.

The legislation includes provisions that prohibit the use of discriminatory approaches against citizens because of their membership of trade unions (article 4 of the Trade Union Act of the Republic of Belarus, and article 14 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus). The legislation also establishes special measures to protect citizens elected to trade union bodies, and trade union members.

Citizens who believe that they have been discriminated against are entitled to apply to the courts in order to protect their legitimate interests and rights. At the same time, trade unions have the right to act as legal representatives of their members in court.

The courts deal objectively and impartially with workers’ claims, regardless of their participation or non-participation in trade unions.

Complaints and petitions from citizens alleging discrimination in labour relations, including discrimination on the grounds of trade union membership, are carefully examined by the courts. However, actions to address discrimination in labour relations, including on the grounds of trade union membership, are isolated in nature.

As part of the implementation of the areas of cooperation proposed by the direct contact mission (that worked in the Republic of Belarus in 2014) and supported by the social partners on the issues of labour dispute resolution and mediation, a tripartite seminar on Mechanisms of dispute resolution and mediation was held in Minsk on 25 February 2016, with the organizational assistance of the International Labour Office.

During the seminar, the participants were presented with an overview of the country’s existing mechanisms of dispute resolution, and there was an active exchange of views on the situation with the examination of labour disputes under the current national system, and possible new effective mechanisms.

We also note that the Government has repeatedly informed the ILO supervisory bodies of the basis for legislative regulation of the use of contractual employment in the Republic of Belarus.

By accepting the terms of the contractual form of employment, and signing a contract as a form of fixed-term employment contract, the employee confirms her/his consent and intention to be in labour relations with the employer for the period of time stipulated in the contract as well as her/his consent and readiness to terminate the labour relations upon expiry of the contract.

As in other legal systems, in the Republic of Belarus, termination of employment at the end of a fixed-term labour contract is not considered as dismissal at the employer’s initiative. In this respect, the legislation does not oblige the employer to justify her/his unwillingness to extend the employment relationship upon expiry of the contract. Expiry of the contract is in itself sufficient grounds for its termination.

Thus, if the employer has decided not to re-enter into labour relations with the employee after expiry of the contract, there is no need for additional justification on this issue.

The issue of forcing an employer to enter into a new contract with an employee cannot be resolved, including in court (except for categories of employees for whom special protective measures have been established by law).

At the same time, the legislation governing the conclusion of contracts with employees is being improved.

For example, Act of the Republic of Belarus No. 219-Z of 18 July 2019, amended the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus (effective as of 28 January 2020) to increase the duration of concluded (extended) contracts.

In particular, article 261-3 of the Labour Code sets out the approach, according to which:

• the conclusion of a contract with an employee (except for an employee entering into her/his first contract) who does not commit any violations of production, technological, performance or labour discipline, shall be for a period of at least three years (or for a shorter period, only with the employee’s consent);
• extension of the contract within its five-year period of validity with an employee who does not commit violations of production, technological, performance or labour discipline, shall be carried out for the period up to the expiry of the maximum term of the contract (or for a shorter period, only with the employee’s written consent).

See also Recommendation 8.

Recommendation 7 has been implemented.

Recommendation 8

• The Commission further recommends that the Government put into place effective procedures for protection against anti-union discrimination and other retaliatory acts. Adequate protection or even immunity against administrative detention should be guaranteed to trade union officials in the performance of their duties or when exercising their civil liberties (freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc.). In order to ensure that such protection is further guaranteed through an impartial and independent judiciary and justice administration, the Commission recommends that the Government implement the recommendations made by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of the judges and lawyers.

The Republic of Belarus has taken the necessary measures to ensure adequate protection of citizens against anti-union discrimination.

As noted above, in the information on the implementation of Recommendation 7, discrimination against citizens on the basis of their membership or non-membership of trade unions is prohibited by law (article 4 of the Trade Union Act of the Republic of Belarus, and article 14 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Belarus).

Citizens’ membership or non-membership of trade unions shall not entail any restrictions of their employment, socio-economic, political, or personal rights and freedoms guaranteed by national legislative acts and provisions of international treaties to which the country is a party.

At the same time, guarantees of trade union rights are also enshrined in legislation (Chapter 2, Fundamental rights of trade unions, and Chapter 3, Guarantees of trade union rights, of the Trade Union Act of the Republic of Belarus), and are ensured in practice.

Employers (and associations thereof), state bodies, economic entities, public associations and officials are obliged to respect trade union rights. Such bodies and entities shall be held liable for violating trade union rights or obstructing their lawful activities in accordance with the law.

In order to carry out their statutory tasks, trade unions have the right, in accordance with the law, to organize and hold mass events, rallies, street marches, demonstrations, and also to take other collective action in order to protect their members’ interests.

The procedure in force in the country for organizing and holding mass events does not contradict the principles of freedom of association and is fully consistent with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The legislative provisions penalizing breaches of this procedure that have serious negative consequences are aimed at preventing socially dangerous, unlawful acts that pose a genuine threat to the life and health of the public. These provisions objectively do not deter citizens and trade unions from exercising their right to freedom of lawful, peaceful assembly.

Trade unions are entitled to organize and hold strikes in accordance with the law. The procedure laid down in the law for organizing and holding strikes does not contravene international labour standards, allowing citizens fully to exercise their right to hold a lawful strike in order to resolve a collective labour dispute.

However, the prohibition of political demands during strikes is a common and justified international practice since enterprises should not be turned into objects of manipulation and used as leverage to achieve purely political goals.

Trade union rights are protected in accordance with the law. Unlawful restrictions on the rights of trade unions and obstructions to the exercise of their powers are not permitted.

At the same time, trade unions must also carry out their activities in accordance with the legislation, i.e., the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, the Trade Union Act of the Republic of Belarus, and other regulatory legal acts. The activities of trade unions may be restricted in cases stipulated by legislative acts in the interests of national security, public order or to ensure the rights and freedoms of others.

In view of the above, the Government considers it necessary to stress once again that any allegations that trade unionists in the Republic of Belarus are persecuted for carrying out lawful trade union activities, participating in peaceful protests and lawful strikes, are unreliable and inaccurate.

Citizens residing in the Republic of Belarus freely and actively enjoy the legally guaranteed right to form trade unions. In turn, trade unions, their leaders, members and activists are free to carry out their legitimate activities aimed at upholding and protecting workers’ labour and socio-economic rights and interests, improving the living standards and social security of citizens, including in the process of cooperating with the authorities within the framework of the country’s existing social partnership system.

However, the competent authorities had every legal basis to bring administrative and criminal proceedings against a number of citizens whose actions were unlawful and who are currently the subject of complaints received by the International Labour Office as persons who have allegedly been the victims of anti-union discrimination.

The Government of the Republic of Belarus has repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the mass events held in the country in 2020 with the support of external destructive forces, were not authorized by the authorities and were carried out in blatant violation of the law, were not peaceful at all, and in some places openly extremist in nature and posed a real threat to public order and the safety of citizens, and furthermore sought to destabilize the situation in the country in order to secure regime change by unconstitutional means.

Illegal attempts to disrupt the operations of individual enterprises had nothing to do with the exercise by workers of the right to hold lawful strikes in order to resolve collective labour disputes and/or satisfy economic or social demands. At the same time, individual workers engaged in absenteeism, refused to perform work stipulated by labour contracts, and took action to halt the operations of enterprises.

Thus, the citizens mentioned in the complaints of trade union structures who allegedly suffered for participating in peaceful protests and lawful strikes, have been prosecuted (on disciplinary, administrative, and in certain cases, criminal grounds) totally legitimately, for committing specific illegal acts.

In this situation, prosecuting citizens is totally unrelated to anti-union discrimination or persecution for the exercise of trade union or civil rights and freedoms and does not justify any reason to debate dropping the charges, providing any compensation and/or job reinstatement.

At the same time it should be noted that representatives of the judiciary and prosecutor’s office are aware of the need to examine carefully the complaints from trade unions and trade union activists of anti-union discrimination and take decisions in full compliance with the rules and requirements of the law.

In order to raise awareness among representatives of the judicial system and prosecution service on the protection of trade union rights and compliance with the relevant international standards, and with the International Labour Office’s support, a seminar on Protection of trade union rights in the activities of the courts and prosecution service of the Republic of Belarus (in the light of the implementation of the recommendations included in the ILO Commission of Inquiry’s report, Trade Union Rights in Belarus) was held in Minsk on 16 January 2007. The seminar was attended by judges of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, regional (Minsk city) and district (city) courts, representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor-General of the Republic of Belarus, regional and Minsk city prosecutor’s offices, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, and the National Labour Arbitration.

Representatives of the judicial authorities and the Office of the Prosecutor-General of the Republic of Belarus, together with representatives of a number of ministries, as well as all trade union and employer associations, took part in a seminar on Respect for trade union rights and protection against anti-union discrimination, which was organized by the Government with the assistance of the International Labour Office, and held in Minsk on 18 June 2008.

Participants in these seminars were informed about the ILO’s approach to freedom of association and also the tasks set out in the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations for the courts and the prosecution service.

As part of the implementation of the areas of cooperation recommended by the direct contact mission (2014), a training course on international labour standards for judges and lawyers was held in Minsk on 20–22 June 2017.

The training course was organized by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, the International Labour Office, and the ILO International Training Centre in Turin for judges and lawyers with competence in labour law cases and issues.

The training course was attended by representatives of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, judges of courts of general jurisdiction, representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, the Ministry of Justice, the Office of the Prosecutor-General, and the prosecutor’s offices of Minsk region and the city of Minsk.

Course participants were introduced to the ILO’s activities and the system of international labour standards (in particular, those relating to freedom of association, collective bargaining, and the prohibition of forced labour), the structure and work mechanisms of the ILO supervisory bodies, the application of international law and national legislation in labour relations, relevant jurisprudence, as well as examples of the application of international law in resolving labour disputes.

With regard to recommendations on ensuring an impartial and independent judicial system and the proper administration of justice, we believe it necessary to note the following.

The Republic of Belarus is a State governed by the rule of law. The individual, her/his rights, freedoms and guarantees to exercise them are the supreme value and goal.

The principle of the rule of law applies in Belarus, and the State guarantees citizens’ rights and liberties as enshrined in the Constitution and laws and as provided for by international obligations.

Everyone is equal before the law and is entitled, without any discrimination, to equal protection of her/his rights and legitimate interests.

Article 60 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus guarantees everyone protection of her/his rights and freedoms by a competent, independent and impartial court.

Decisions and actions (omissions) of state bodies and officials that infringe rights and freedoms may be appealed in court.

The judicial system in the Republic of Belarus is determined by law.

Judges are independent in the administration of justice, and subject only to the law. Any interference in the activities of judges in the administration of justice is impermissible and punishable by law.

The courts administer justice on the basis of the Constitution and other regulatory acts adopted in accordance with it.

If, during the examination of a specific case, the court comes to the conclusion that a regulatory act is inconsistent with the Constitution, it shall rule in accordance with the Constitution, and raise the issue of declaring the regulatory act in question unconstitutional in accordance with the established procedure.

Cases in the courts are heard collectively by a collegial body of judges, and in cases provided for by law, by a single judge.

All court cases are heard in public. Hearings in camera may only be held in cases specified by law, and in accordance with all the rules of legal procedure.

Justice shall be administered on the basis of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms.

Court rulings shall be binding on all citizens and officials.

Parties and persons participating in proceedings have the right to appeal against decisions, sentences and other court rulings.

There are no obstacles to citizens taking cases to court.

Recommendation 8 has been implemented.

Recommendation 9

• The Commission recommends amendment of Decree No. 24 concerning the use of foreign gratuitous aid along the lines previously suggested by the ILO supervisory bodies, so as to ensure that workers’ and employers’ organizations may effectively organize their administration and activities and benefit from assistance from international organizations of workers and employers in conformity with Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.

At present, the issues of registration, taxation and use of foreign gratuitous aid are regulated by Presidential Decree of the Republic of Belarus No. 3 of 25 May 2020 on Foreign Gratuitous Aid.

In accordance with the Decree, foreign gratuitous aid (assistance) received by legal entities of the Republic of Belarus may be used for:

• - providing medical assistance, including medical and social and palliative medical care, and also for the purchase of medicines and medical devices, consumables for their maintenance, payment for medical services, health-resort treatment and recuperation for members of the public;
• - providing social assistance and social services to low-income citizens, persons with disabilities, pensioners, children, families with many children, single parents, foster and adoptive families, persons with no fixed abode, as well as persons (families) in difficult life situations, including as a result of forced migration;
• - preventing and responding to natural and man-made emergencies, ensuring fire, industrial, nuclear and radiation safety, and addressing the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster;
• - strengthening the material and technical base of state institutions (including state bodies);
• - construction, repair (reconstruction) of social facilities;
• - establishing and developing libraries, and creating and maintaining library collections;
• - establishing and developing museums, and curating museum collections;
• - training and professional development of employees of state institutions (including state bodies);
• - providing physical culture and sports organizations, educational institutions, scientific organizations, healthcare organizations engaged in physical culture and sports, sports clothing and footwear, sports equipment, kit, gear, maintenance consumables, and also prizes, medals, diplomas, flowers, souvenirs and award paraphernalia, pharmacological and restorative agents, and protein and glucose vitamin supplements;
• - the preparation and participation of national teams of the Republic of Belarus in sports and reserve teams in sporting events in the territory of the Republic of Belarus and/or abroad;
• - installing sewage treatment facilities, creating waste utilization facilities, waste decontamination and landfill facilities, and deploying sustainable energy sources;
• - holding of international and national events (competitions, conferences, seminars and congresses) by state institutions (including state bodies);
• - payment of general business expenses relating to the maintenance of the administrative apparatus of a legal entity or sole proprietor and support of their activities according to the list determined by the Office of the President of the Republic of Belarus;
• - other purposes provided that the Interdepartmental Commission on Foreign Gratuitous Aid approves these uses of aid.
• - It is prohibited to receive and/or use aid for the following purposes (or relating to the following):
• - carrying out terrorist and other extremist activities, other acts prohibited by law, as well as those causing harm to national security, state and/or public interests or threatening to cause such harm;
• - financing of political parties, or unions (associations) of political parties;
• - preparing or holding elections, referendums, the recall of deputies of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus, members of the Council of the Republic of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus, deputies of the local Council of Deputies, or organizing or holding meetings, rallies, street marches, demonstrations, picketing, strikes, and producing or distributing campaign materials;
• - organizing events aimed at conducting political and campaigning work among the population.

Thus, Decree No. 3 does not include any provisions prohibiting the receipt and use of aid by trade unions or employers’ associations.

At the same time, Decree No. 3 defines the conditions (purposes) for the use of foreign gratuitous aid and stipulates that such aid must be registered in accordance with the established procedure. However, the registration procedure is quick and easy. There have been no instances of trade unions being denied foreign gratuitous aid.

We also consider it necessary to note that the procedure established in the Republic of Belarus for receiving foreign gratuitous aid is unjustifiably linked in the ILO framework with Articles 5 and 6 of Convention No. 87.

These Articles of Convention No. 87 do not contain provisions on the right of trade unions and/or employer associations to unimpeded receipt of financial or other forms of assistance for political and campaign work among the population (organization of mass events, strikes, production and distribution of campaign materials, etc.).

The existing ban in the Republic of Belarus on receiving and using foreign gratuitous aid for purposes involving political and campaign work is dictated by national security interests and is more than justified.

It is obvious that, in the current situation, giving outside (foreign) forces the opportunity to sponsor various kinds of politically orientated events and processes in the country may be used to destabilize the socio-political and socio-economic situation in the country, which would have an extremely negative impact on society and citizens’ well-being.

Therefore, Recommendation 9 does not fully meet national security interests.

Recommendation 10

• The Commission further recommends amendment of the Law on Mass Events (as well as Decree No. 11 if it has not yet been repealed), as previously suggested by the ILO supervisory bodies, so as to bring it into line with the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their activities provided for in Article 3 of the Convention.

The Act of the Republic of Belarus No. 114-Z of 30 December 1997 on Mass Events establishes the procedure for organizing and holding meetings, rallies, street marches, demonstrations, picketing and other mass events, and is aimed at creating the conditions for the exercise of the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens, ensuring public safety and order when these events are held in streets, squares and other public places.

The freedom of mass events that do not violate law and order and the rights of other citizens of the Republic of Belarus, are guaranteed by the State.

In accordance with the Act, mass events, as well as speeches by their participants, shall be held at a specified time and place in accordance with the purposes specified in the application.

Mass events shall be prohibited if their purpose is to promote war or extremist activities.

The organizers of a meeting, rally, street march, demonstration or picketing shall be prohibited from involving citizens in exchange for material remuneration.

During the mass event, its participants shall be obliged to observe public order and comply with all lawful requirements of the organizers of the mass event, officers of internal affairs agencies and members of the public performing public order duties.

State bodies, political parties, trade unions and other organizations, as well as citizens shall not have the right to interfere with or obstruct the holding of mass events held in compliance with the requirements of this Act and other legislative acts.

Persons who have violated the procedure for organizing and/or holding mass events established by the Act in question shall be held liable in accordance with legislative acts.

Political parties, trade unions and other organizations, whose responsible persons have failed to ensure the proper procedure for organizing and/or holding a meeting, rally, street march, demonstration or picketing, which caused extensive damage or substantial harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, organizations or to state or public interests, may be dissolved in accordance with the established procedure for a single violation of the legislation on mass events.

Damage caused by the organizers of and participants in a mass event, to the State, citizens and organizations during the mass event shall be subject to compensation in the manner prescribed by law.

It should be noted that the current procedure in the Republic of Belarus for organizing and holding mass events does not conflict with the principles of freedom of association and is fully consistent with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Legislation providing for punishment for violating the procedure for organizing and holding a mass event, resulting in serious adverse consequences, is aimed at preventing socially dangerous, or illegal acts, that pose a real threat to the life and health of the public.

When holding mass events, trade unions are obliged to respect public order, and must not a priori permit actions which could cause the event to lose its peaceful character and cause serious harm to the public, society and the State.

The punishment provided by legislation for the organizers of a mass event for causing substantial damage, or harm to the rights and interests of citizens, organizations, and also to state or public interests, is not and objectively should not, be interpreted as a deterrent to the exercise by citizens and trade unions of the right to freedom of lawful, peaceful assembly.

Taking into account the unprecedented political and economic pressure exerted on the Republic of Belarus, we believe that diluting liability for violating the procedure for holding mass events would contribute to the creation of conditions for the strengthening of external destructive influences on the situation in the country, which would not be in the national interests of the Republic of Belarus, nor serve the purpose of ensuring the well-being of its citizens.

Thus, the Act on Mass Events does not contain provisions directly or indirectly preventing workers’ and employers’ organizations from exercising the right to organize their activities.

However, the requirements to dilute trade unions’ liability for violating the procedure for holding mass events are not in the interests of national security.

Recommendation 11

• The Commission recommends that the Government ensure that the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU), which already has a seat on the National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI), is allowed to participate through whichever representative it designates and also that it take steps to ensure the right of all umbrella organizations representing trade unions in Belarus to participate in the NCLSI. The CDTU’s participation on the NCLSI should be ensured with immediate effect.

In order to ensure free and equal participation of all social partners in the dialogue with the Government, a representative of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions has been included in the composition of the main tripartite social partnership body at the national level: the NCLSI.

During the meeting of the NCLSI held on 31 January 2007, the inclusion of Mr A.I. Yarashuk, BKDP as chairperson, in this tripartite body, was approved.

During his membership of the NCLSI, BKDP chairperson Mr A.I. Yarashuk represented the interests of all affiliated organizations of the trade union organization he headed, the Belarusian Trade Union of Radio-Electronic Industry Workers (trade union REP), the Belarusian Independent Trade Union of Miners, Chemists, Oil Refiners, Power Engineers, Transport Workers, Construction and Other Workers (BNP), the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers (SPM), and the Free Trade Union of Belarus (SPB).

Recommendation 11 has been implemented.

Recommendation 12

• The Commission recommends that the Government undertake a thorough review of its industrial relations system with the aim of ensuring a clear distinction between the role of the Government and that of the social partners and of promoting clearly independent structures of workers’ and employers’ organizations.

Belarus ensures a clear distinction between the roles of the Government and the social partners, which is a prerequisite for the latter to carry out their lawful activities freely and independently.

The Government’s activity is regulated by Act of the Republic of Belarus No. 424-Z of 23 July 2008, on the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus.

The Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus is the Government of the Republic of Belarus and is a collegial central body of state administration of the Republic of Belarus, which, in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, exercises executive power in the Republic of Belarus and manages the system of subordinate national bodies of state administration and other organizations, as well as, on issues within its competence, the system of local executive and administrative authorities.

The Council of Ministers is accountable in its activities to the President of the Republic of Belarus and responsible to the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus.

The Council of Ministers consists of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Belarus, her/his deputies, ministers, chairpersons of state committees subordinate to the Council of Ministers, and the Chief of Staff of the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers may include the heads of other state bodies and organizations in accordance with the decisions of the President.

The competence of the Council of Ministers is enshrined in Chapter 3 of the Act on the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus.

In accordance with the general powers vested therein, the Council of Ministers:

• - ensures the implementation of the Constitution, decisions of the All-Belarusian People’s Assembly, laws and Presidential acts, and oversees their implementation by national state administration bodies and other organizations subordinate to it, as well as local executive and administration bodies, individuals and organizations;
• - formulates the main areas of domestic and foreign policy of the Republic of Belarus and takes measures for its implementation;
• - ensures the implementation of a unified economic, financial, credit and monetary policy, state policy in the field of science and innovation, culture, education, healthcare, physical culture, sport and tourism, the environment, social security and wages, the public–private partnership, prevention of and response to natural and man-made emergencies, and in the areas of investments, concessions, digital development, etc.;
• - takes measures to ensure the rights and freedoms of citizens, protect the interests of the State, national security and defence capability, protect property and public order, and combat crime and corruption;
• - subject to the specific features established by other legislative acts, acts on behalf of the owner in respect of property owned by the Republic of Belarus, and organizes the management of state property;
• - has the right to establish, reorganize and dissolve legal entities whose property is owned by the Republic of Belarus;
• - approves, in agreement with the President, the lists of state programmes, state and regional scientific and technical programmes, and also approves the list of state scientific research programmes;
• - ensures the development and implementation of state programmes and approves them.
• - The Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus also exercises other powers vested therein by the Constitution, laws and Presidential acts.

Trade unions carry out their activities in accordance with the Trade Union Act of the Republic of Belarus, No. 1605-XII of 22 April 1992.

Pursuant to the Act, a trade union is a voluntary public organization of citizens of the Republic of Belarus, foreign citizens and stateless persons (hereinafter, unless specified otherwise, “citizens”), including those receiving vocational, technical, secondary specialized, higher, science-orientated education, bound by common interests in the nature of their occupation, in both industrial and non-industrial fields, for the protection and realization of labour and socio-economic rights and interests.

Citizens have the right voluntarily to establish trade unions of their choice, and also to join trade unions, provided that their statutes are observed.

Foreign citizens and stateless persons may join trade unions established and operating in the territory of the Republic of Belarus, if their charters so provide.

Trade unions may, on a voluntary basis, establish national unions (associations), and other associations (trade union associations) enjoying trade union rights, and also join them.

National associations of trade unions may, in accordance with the procedure provided for in their statutes, establish territorial (regional, town/city and district) and other organizational structures with trade union rights.

Trade unions (trade union associations) and their organizational structures are legal entities in accordance with the law and their statutes.

The principle of trade union independence is enshrined in legislation and implemented in practice.

Thus, under article 3 of the Act, trade unions carry out their activities in accordance with the Constitution, the Trade Union Act, and other legislative acts. The activities of trade unions may be restricted in cases stipulated by legislative acts in the interests of national security, public order or to ensure the rights and freedoms of others.

Trade unions independently draw up and approve their charters, determine their structure, elect their governing bodies, organize their activities, hold meetings, conferences, plenums and congresses.

Trade unions (trade union associations), their symbols, amendments and additions to their charter shall be subject to state registration in accordance with the procedure established by law.

In accordance with their statutory aims and objectives, trade unions have the right to cooperate with trade unions from other countries, and to join international and other trade union associations and organizations of their choice.

Citizens’ membership or non-membership of trade unions shall not entail any restrictions of their employment, socio-economic, political, or personal rights and freedoms guaranteed by legislation.

A trade union’s activity shall be terminated by decision of its members in accordance with the procedure specified by the charter of the trade union in question.

In cases where the activities of trade unions (trade union associations) contravene the Constitution and other legislative acts, or cause harm to state or public interests, they may be suspended for up to six months, or terminated with respect to national trade unions and their associations by decision of the Supreme Court on application by the Prosecutor-General, and in respect of territorial trade unions, by а court decision on application by the prosecutor of the administrative territorial unit concerned.

Article 6 of the Act establishes the procedure for interaction between state administrative bodies, monitoring (supervisory) bodies and trade unions.

Thus, improvement and development of the system of social partnership, forms and methods of interaction between trade unions (trade union associations), employers (associations thereof) and state administrative bodies are one of the top priorities of the socio-economic policy of the Republic of Belarus.

Trade unions participate in the development and implementation of the State’s socio-economic policy.

Trade unions have the right to submit proposals to the state administrative bodies, in accordance with the established procedure, on the adoption, amendment or repeal of legislation on labour and socio-economic issues. Regulatory legal acts affecting the labour and socio-economic rights and interests of citizens, shall be adopted by state administrative bodies with prior notification of the relevant trade unions (trade union associations).

Trade unions, through their authorized representatives, have the right to participate in the work of the collegial bodies of ministries and other national bodies of state administration, meetings of local executive and administrative bodies, and management bodies of organizations in accordance with the procedure established by the Council of Ministers in coordination with the relevant trade unions.

National and local budgets may provide funds for the implementation of national and local programmes (educational, research, cultural, health and fitness, information, etc.) aimed at realizing the rights, freedoms and interests of citizens, as proposed by the relevant national and regional trade union associations.

In exercising public monitoring, trade unions interact with state administrative bodies, monitoring (supervisory) bodies and other organizations.

The fundamental rights of trade unions and guarantees of those rights are enshrined in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Act.

Employers (associations thereof), state bodies, economic entities, public associations and officials are obliged to respect trade union rights. Such bodies and entities shall be held liable for violating trade union rights or obstructing their lawful activities in accordance with the law.

Employers (associations thereof), state bodies, economic entities, public associations and officials have no right to prevent trade union representatives from visiting organizations in which members of these trade unions work, unless otherwise provided by legislative acts.

Trade union rights shall be protected in accordance with the law. Unlawful restriction of trade union rights and obstruction of the exercise of their powers shall not be permitted.

On 16 December 2023, Act of the Republic of Belarus No. 225-Z of 12 December 2022 on Employers’ Associations, drafted at the initiative of business associations engaged in social dialogue with trade unions, came into force.

The adoption of the Act is aimed at developing the institution of employers’ associations as subjects of social partnership in the country.

The Act defines the procedure for establishing employers’ associations, their legal status and principles of activity, rights and obligations, and also the rights and obligations of their members.

The Act applies to employers and associations thereof operating in the Republic of Belarus.

In accordance with national legislation, employers’ associations, along with state bodies and trade unions, are parties to the social partnership system.

According to the Act, an employers’ association is a non-profit organization, established in the form of an organization (union), bringing together, on the basis of voluntary membership, employers and/or associations of employers for the purpose of representing and protecting their rights and legitimate interests in the field of social, labour and related economic relations, included in the register of employers’ associations (“the Register”).

Employers have the right, on a voluntary basis, to establish employers’ associations, and are also free to join or leave such organizations under the conditions established by law and specified by the charters of these associations.

The activities of employers’ associations are regulated by the legislation on employers’ associations, as well as international treaties of the Republic of Belarus and other international legal acts containing obligations of the Republic of Belarus.

Employers’ associations are established and act to represent and protect the rights and legitimate interests of employers and employers’ associations in social, labour and related economic relations, as well as to implement the tasks assigned to them.

The main tasks of employers’ associations are:

• - interaction with state bodies, trade unions (their associations and organizational structures) and other representative bodies of workers authorized in accordance with legislative acts to represent their interests, in the system of social partnership;
• - participation in the formulation and implementation of the State’s social, labour and economic policy;
• - conducting collective negotiations to conclude, amend or supplement general, tariff and local agreements, and ensuring the fulfilment of their obligations under the agreements;
• - coordinating the activities of members of employers’ associations to fulfil their obligations under the agreements;
• - providing advisory and methodological assistance to employers and employers’ associations in averting and resolving collective labour disputes.
• - Employers’ associations:
• - independently draw up their statutes, elect their governing bodies and organize their activities;
• - in accordance with their statutory goals and objectives have the right to collaborate with other employers’ associations, associations (unions) and public associations established in the Republic of Belarus, associations (unions) of employers from other countries, and also with international unions (organizations) of employers;
• - have the right to join international unions (organizations) of employers.

Employers’ associations operate on the principle of voluntary accession to, and withdrawal from, membership.

Relations between employers’ associations, state bodies and trade unions are based on the principles of social partnership and cooperation between the parties.

Employers’ associations may be national or territorial (regional, district, or town/city).

The most representative national employers’ association, the Confederation of Employers of the Republic of Belarus, coordinates the activities of employers’ associations within the framework of the social partnership system.

The Confederation of Employers is recognized as a national employers’ association, which includes more than half of the national employers’ associations operating in the Republic of Belarus.

Employers’ associations, as subjects of social partnership, have the right to interact with state bodies and trade unions on formulating and implementing state social, labour and economic policy, and protecting the rights and legitimate interests of employers and employers’ associations.

Employers’ associations are entitled to submit proposals to state bodies regarding the adoption, amendment or repeal of legislative acts that affect the interests of employers and employers’ associations.

Representatives of employers, taking into account their status and sectoral affiliation, are included in labour and social councils established at the industry and territory level.

Employers’ associations represent the interests of their members in collective bargaining to conclude, amend or supplement agreements.

When entering into a general agreement, the employers’ side is represented by the Confederation of Employers of the Republic of Belarus, and in the event of its absence, representation of the employers’ side is determined by agreement between the national employers’ associations.

The structure, formation procedure and powers of the management bodies of the employers’ associations, and their decision-making procedure are determined by the charter of the employers’ association.

Since the Act regulates the exercise of powers of employers’ associations as one of the parties to the social partnership system, non-profit organizations established in the form of associations (unions) must be recognized as employers’ associations through inclusion in the Register of Employers’ Associations in order to acquire such powers.

The Register contains a list of employers’ associations operating in the Republic of Belarus, indicating their status.

A non-profit organization is included in the Register on the basis of an application submitted to the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection.

The decision on whether to include a non-profit organization in the Register is made on the basis of an assessment of the conformity of its charter and the composition of its membership with the provisions of this Act.

The creation and maintenance of the Register, as well as organizational and methodological support for the creation and maintenance of the register, are carried out by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection.

The rights and obligations of employers’ associations are enshrined in Chapter 3 of the Act.

Employers’ associations have the right to:

• - carry out activities aimed at achieving its statutory aims and objectives;
• - receive and disseminate freely information relevant to the activities of an employers’ association, unless to do so would contravene legislative requirements;
• - protect the rights and legitimate interests, and also represent their members’ legitimate interests, in state bodies and other organizations, in relations with trade unions;
• - initiate and conduct collective bargaining for the purpose of concluding, amending or supplementing agreements;
• - obtain from the relevant state bodies and trade unions information necessary to conduct collective bargaining to conclude, amend or supplement agreements, and to monitor their implementation;
• - participate in the implementation of measures to promote employment, develop vocational education and training, and draw up draft professional standards;
• - exercise other rights stipulated by the Act, other legislative acts and the charter of the employers’ association.

The employers’ association shall:

• - conduct, in accordance with the procedure established by law, collective bargaining to conclude, amend or supplement agreements;
• - implement the agreements entered into, to the extent they relate to the obligations of employers’ associations;
• - provide its members with details on agreements concluded by the employers’ association;
• - provide state bodies and trade unions with the information necessary to conduct collective bargaining and relating to the competence of the employers’ association;
• - monitor implementation of agreements entered into by the employers’ association;
• - assist in its members’ fulfilment of the obligations stipulated in the agreements;
• - report to its members on the activities of the employers’ association in accordance with the procedure provided for by the charter;
• - provide its members with advisory and methodological assistance on the regulation of social, labour and related economic relations, including on the conclusion of collective contracts and agreements, and the resolution of individual and collective labour disputes;
• - perform other duties stipulated by the Act, other legislative acts and the charter of the employers’ association.

An employers’ association shall not be liable for the obligations of its members, including their obligations under the agreements entered into by the employers’ association.

Recommendation 12 has been implemented.

Thus, the information provided above confirms that the situation with the implementation by the Republic of Belarus of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations has been steadily developing. At the same time, the ILO supervisory bodies have repeatedly noted with interest the measures taken by the Government, stating that progress has been made.

At this stage, most of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations (except for those that are not in the interests of national security) have been implemented.

In this regard, statements that the Government of the Republic of Belarus has failed to take measures to implement most of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations, and also regarding a complete lack of progress in their implementation, are totally unfounded and do not correspond with reality.

The Government of the Republic of Belarus is ready to cooperate with the International Labour Office on issues concerning the implementation of the ratified ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98, provided that account is taken of present day realities and national interests, at the forefront of which are the stable socio-economic development of the Republic, the well-being and high quality of life of the Belarusian people, social harmony, the unshakeable foundations of democracy and the rule of law, and the country’s independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Discussion by the Committee

Chairperson – As you know, at its 111th Session, the International Labour Conference adopted a resolution concerning the measures recommended by the ILO Governing Body under article 33 of the Constitution on the subject of Belarus and decided to hold at its future sessions a special sitting of the Committee for the purpose of discussing the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), by the Government of Belarus and the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, as long as this Member has not been shown to have fulfilled its obligations. Based on this decision, an item has been included in the Committee’s agenda.

In this regard, I would like to inform all delegates that the Officers of the Committee have decided to reduce the speaking time for individual member delegates of the Committee from five to three minutes for the special sitting on Belarus. The delegates concerned have been informed accordingly by the Secretariat.

I now invite the Government representative of Belarus to take the floor.

Interpretation from Russian: Government representative (Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Protection) – Today, for the first time, the issue concerning the Republic of Belarus is being discussed within the framework of the procedure provided for by the resolution adopted under article 33 of the ILO Constitution last year at the 111th Session of the Conference. I would like to begin by clearly and unambiguously clarifying the position of the Government of Belarus on this resolution. We consider this article 33 resolution to be unfair and politically motivated. Adoption of the resolution was lobbied by countries from the Western Bloc. The authors of the resolution based it on sanctions and discriminatory measures that have no moral or legal basis. The goals being pursued by western countries are obvious to us. This is an attempt to justify the unfair and illegal economic sanctions applied to our country as a punishment for our steering an independent course. Western sanctions are aimed at harming not only business within our country but also ordinary people – depriving them of work, income, social guarantees, and ultimately creating tension in society. The resolution contains nothing about interaction and cooperation. It concerns only restrictions, exceptions and revision of relations. The measures set forth in the resolution are contrary to the ILO Constitution and the fundamental principles of its activities. The ILO principles have nothing to do with threats, pressures or sanctions. I am convinced that the existence of such an unfair resolution with reference to a full Member of the ILO causes irreparable damage to the authority of this Organization. It clearly shows the whole world that a particular group of countries has the ability to manipulate the stance of the ILO at its own discretion.

The rhetoric about the need to apply article 33 of the ILO Constitution to Belarus unfolded in the context of accusations of a supposed lack of progress in implementing the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry, and a steady worsening of the situation in the country. I have no doubt that we will hear such statements again today, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the real state of affairs. The Government, together with the social partners, has done a great deal to upgrade national legislation, taking into account the ILO principles to develop social dialogue and tripartism in our country. To date, the majority of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations have been implemented. I will not dwell in detail on all the measures taken by the Government in the context of implementing the recommendations. We submitted a detailed report to the Director-General, which is included in the documents for your Committee. I will only say this: in almost all areas outlined in the recommendations, specific steps were taken and significant results were achieved, such as publication of recommendations in the media, simplification of the registration procedure for trade unions, establishment of tripartite councils, and work with judges and prosecutors. In saying that, I wish to emphasize that the ILO supervisory bodies have repeatedly assessed the Government’s actions in a positive way. I would especially like to note the good will shown by the Government of Belarus, its focus on interaction and cooperation with social partners and the ILO. We have tried to be as flexible and constructive as possible. At the suggestion of the ILO, we established a special negotiating platform to develop measures to implement the recommendations, a tripartite council for the improvement of legislation in the social and labour sphere, which included all interested parties. Since 2009, experts from the ILO have repeatedly participated in the meetings of that council. With their assistance, we were able to find mutually acceptable solutions to a number of issues. The results of this joint work have been reflected in legislation and the general agreement that applies in our country. Let me emphasize that our position remains unchanged. We stand ready to interact constructively and to cooperate with the ILO. We invite representatives of the ILO to participate in the work of our tripartite bodies, the National Council for Labour and Social Issues and the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (the aforementioned tripartite Council). At this stage, the Office has not made a positive decision on that issue, but we hope that over time everything will be resolved and cooperation will resume.

In 2019, we all celebrated the ILO Centenary. It was clear that the Government had made significant progress in implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. In February 2019, a tripartite conference in Minsk with the participation of ILO representatives confirmed the high level of cooperation between our Government, the social partners and the ILO in the development of social dialogue and tripartism. However, unfortunately, everything changed in 2020. The tone of the ILO supervisory bodies’ assessments of Belarus shifted radically and became much more negative. I would like to emphasize that this is not the fault of the Government of Belarus. Politics intervened in the situation. More precisely, attempts were made by western countries to illegally influence the country’s political life and the choices of the Belarusian people. The West’s main goal was to destabilize the situation in Belarus, to create chaos and disorder and, ultimately, a coup d’état. These attempts failed. The authorities in Belarus confirmed their ability to act. The people of Belarus overwhelmingly expressed support for the country’s leadership. Of course, as in any civilized State governed by the rule of law, organizers and participants of riots were brought to justice and received the punishment they deserved. Among them were representatives of trade unions united under the roof of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP). I think we will hear more about this today in the speeches made here by some speakers, and I therefore consider it necessary to clearly outline the position of my Government with reference to the BKDP. The BKDP has never represented any significant trade union force in our country. It has never had anything in common with the real trade union movement. Issues relating to labour, social dialogue and collective bargaining were not within the scope of the BKDP. Rather, under its banner, a handful of politicians united, conveniently receiving western financial funding through grants, seminars and trips abroad. This is no secret to anyone – everyone knows. For instance, the machinations of the leaders of the BKDP-affiliated Trade Union of Radio and Electronic Industry Workers, who were funded by Danish trade unions, were widely reported. Given the pseudo-trade union and highly politicized focus of the BKDP’s activities, it has never been supported to any reasonable extent by workers of Belarus. It has not been a representative organization. In a country where around 4 million people are trade union members, the BKDP trade unions numbered only a few thousand altogether. As a result, the BKDP quite objectively did not have the legitimate right to participate in social dialogue with the Government. However, the ILO strongly recommended that the Government provide the BKDP with an opportunity to participate in the work of tripartite bodies at national level. Guided by the principles of good will, the Government gave the BKDP the opportunity to participate, despite the fact that this considerably complicated the process of conducting dialogue. I think that the ILO experts who participated in the meetings of the tripartite Council could see for themselves how difficult the task was to develop mutually acceptable solutions with the participation of the BKDP. The representatives at the BKDP tried to turn each meeting of the tripartite Council into a political rally. The BKDP also transferred its biased and destructive position to what we now see on the ILO platform. Every year at the meetings of this Committee, the Chairperson of the BKDP, Mr Yarashuk, made unfounded and false accusations against the Government. The year of 2020 was a turning point. The events of that year highlighted the true goals and objectives of the BKDP and the trade unions that were part of it. These pseudo-trade unions actually became a headquarters for the organization of extremist activities. Their leaders and activists grossly violated our laws, took action against the interests of our society and our State. As a result, court decisions terminated the activities of the BKDP. Its member organizations, leaders and activists within those structures were brought to account judicially.

I would like to emphasize one point. In taking measures to protect the constitutional and public order in Belarus, the Government has not committed any action that contradicts ILO Conventions. ILO Conventions do not give trade unions and their members the right to break the law. The illegal actions of the BKDP and its member trade unions were confirmed by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus. In 2022, in full compliance with the law, it decided to terminate the activities of the BKDP. Today, the BKDP and its structures are not operating in Belarus and do not represent the interests of workers in our country. They are illegitimate in Belarus. Therefore, we strongly condemn any attempt to involve representatives of an illegitimate structure, the BKDP, within this dialogue on Belarus. I would like to emphasize that the inclusion of pseudo-trade unions represented by the BKDP within the judicial scope of Belarus does not and could not, in any way, affect social dialogue and tripartism in our country. All social partnership institutions are operating as usual within Belarus. On our agenda, we have the development of a new general agreement. This would be the 17th general agreement between the Government and national level associations of employers and trade unions.

Following the adoption of the resolution under article 33 of the ILO Constitution, the issue of Belarus has been discussed twice at the sessions of the Governing Body. What has emerged from those discussions? They confirmed that the resolution is being used by those who lobbied for it as a way of putting pressure on Belarus. With the help of the resolution, the ILO is being turned into a platform for implementing political orders and settling scores with unwelcome countries. This process must be stopped. The unfair resolution on the Republic of Belarus, must be repealed as it inevitably leads us to confrontation. We need to enter a new chapter and to close this chapter. We are ready to cooperate with the ILO on the principles of mutual respect and unconditional consideration of the national interests of the Republic of Belarus. I call on the Committee to take the first step in that direction and include in its conclusions a corresponding recommendation to the Governing Body.

Employer members – We have taken note of the oral and written information on this case provided by the Government of Belarus. The Employers’ group stresses the importance of States’ compliance with the ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98, which are two of the ten ILO core Conventions.

Conventions Nos 87 and 98 were ratified by Belarus in 1956. The Employers’ group would like to mention that this case has a long-standing history in the ILO. Since 1997, the Committee of Experts has issued many observations, and the case has been dealt with in various ILO supervisory committees. This year marks the 20th anniversary since the Commission of Inquiry issued its report and recommendations to ensure observance of Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

In the 2022 conclusions, the Committee, inter alia, urged the Government of Belarus, in consultation with the social partners, to: restore, without delay, full respect for workers’ rights in respect to freedom of association; refrain from the arrest, detention, violent treatment, intimidation or harassment, including judicial harassment of trade union leaders and members conducting lawful trade union activities; investigate without delay alleged instances of intimidation or physical violence through an independent judicial inquiry, immediately release all trade union leaders and members arrested for participating in peaceful assemblies or arrested for exercising their civil liberties through their legitimate trade union activities and drop all related charges; give access as a matter of urgency to visitors, including officials of the ILO; and to ascertain the conditions of arrest and detention and the welfare of the above‑mentioned persons.

The Employer members would like to recall that the Conference adopted on 12 June 2023 a resolution which called for actions under article 33 of the ILO Constitution, to secure compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine the observance by the Government of Belarus of Conventions Nos 87 and 98. It was also decided to hold a Special Sitting of the Conference Committee to discuss the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98, as well as the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Committee of Experts, in 2023, gave, inter alia, the following advice on Convention No. 87. They requested that all trade union leaders and members arrested for participating in peaceful assemblies or arrested for exercising their civil liberties be immediately released and that all related charges be dropped. The Committee of Experts urged the Government to receive, without further delay, an ILO Tripartite Mission to gather information on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and subsequent recommendations of the supervisory bodies of the ILO. The Committee of Experts expected the Government to indicate concrete steps taken to review the situation of the dissolved trade unions. It urged the Government to engage with the ILO to fully implement all outstanding recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies without further delay.

It should be noted that the Government of Belarus transmitted written information on the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, which has been made available in full on the Conference Committee’s website. On 28 May 2024, the ILO organized a “High-level roundtable on freedom of association in Belarus”, which took place as part of the action plan adopted in March 2024 by the Governing Body to implement the ILO Conference resolution. Three United Nations Special Rapporteurs participated in the roundtable and reported. A video download of the meeting is available on the ILO website.

The Employer members would like to mention the recent report of the Director-General on the latest developments regarding the situation on freedom of association in Belarus and compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The document was published on 3 June 2024 and is available on the ILO website. Furthermore, the ILO Governing Body dealt with this case several times. At the Governing Body Session in March 2024, it was requested to prepare an updated report to inform the Committee at the Conference about the latest developments. The Governing Body also, once again, urged the Government of Belarus, to receive as a matter of urgency an ILO tripartite mission with a view to gathering information on the implementation of the recommendations, including a visit to the independent trade union leaders and activists in prison or detention.

By a communication dated 17 May 2024, the BKDP provided information on the implementation by the Government of Belarus of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. According to the BKDP, it is currently impossible for trade unions and their members to carry out their activities legally. Anyone who associates with any independent trade unions and carries out trade union and human right activities is subject to criminal liability. The BKDP indicated that as of 7 May 2024 more than 50 trade unionists were under criminal prosecution, and provided a list of 39 trade unionists currently imprisoned, as well as a list of 21 trade unionists who were released but not exonerated and on whom additional restrictions were placed.

The Employer members would like to highlight that, in line with Article 2 of Convention No. 87, freedom of association compliance requires that workers and employers must be able to decide freely, without state interference, whether or not to set up their own organizations. Under Article 3 of Convention No. 87, the right to organize constitutes an important aspect of the activities of employers’ and workers’ organizations. According to Article 11 of Convention No. 87, states must “take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that workers and employers may exercise freely the right to organise”.

Taking into account all the reports, the Employers’ group, once again and in line with our statements in the different ILO supervisory bodies, would like to express grave concern.

After all these years, we note the Committee of Experts’ comments deploring “a total lack of progress” and “the continuing deterioration of the freedom of association in the country”.

We urge the Government to start engaging in a constructive dialogue with the ILO with no further delay, to improve the country’s situation as regards the right of freedom of association and the right to organize. The Employer members stand ready to constructively support this process.

In conclusion, the Employer members recommend the Government to, first, receive as a matter of urgency an ILO Tripartite Mission with a view to gathering information on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, and recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies. Second, to take steps towards the release of the detained trade unionists, who were detained because they exercised their right of freedom of association, and to provide a copy of the judicial decisions. Third, to engage with the ILO with a view to implementing the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies without further delay. And finally, to report to the ILO on the measures taken by the Government.

Worker members – Chair, the example of Poland you presented in your opening remarks show us the crucial role of the ILO and its supervisory system in supporting and guiding Member States to fulfil and realize our foundational values of social justice, democracy and the promotion of universal peace.

This morning, our Committee is performing a special duty as instructed to us by the Conference. The measure directly aims to secure compliance by the Government of Belarus with the recommendations of the ILO Commission of Inquiry, which examined the observance by the Government of Belarus of Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The resolution calls on the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and subsequent recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies and to accept an ILO tripartite mission, including a visit to imprisoned or detained trade union activists and leaders.

We note at the outset that in November 2023 and March this year, 2024, the Governing Body also discussed the situation in Belarus noting, among others, an action plan to implement the resolution. As part of it, the ILO convened a high-level roundtable to discuss freedom of association in Belarus.

The Committee on Freedom of Association has also been examining measures taken by the Government of Belarus, if any, to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

We are saddened and deeply concerned that despite the overwhelming evidence of repression against independent trade unions and their leaders, the dire and deteriorating human rights situation, the closed civic space and the strong condemnation by ILO members, the Government continues to violate its obligations under the Conventions with impunity.

The Commission of Inquiry recently examined the situation in Belarus and “… deplored the continuing deterioration of freedom of association in the country, the total lack of progress in implementing the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry and the failure of the Government to address the outstanding recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies and the conclusions of the Governing Body”.

This year, the Committee of Experts expressed in its report its “… deep concern regarding the situation of civil liberties in Belarus and the application of the Convention in law and in practice …” and noted, “… with deep regret that in its report, the Government once again merely reiterates the information it had previously provided and considers that the Committee misunderstands and misinterprets the situation on the ground”.

In the Director-General’s Report on the latest developments, the Government is reported to have indicated in its communication on 9 April 2024 that it was ready to cooperate with the Office in the implementation of Conventions Nos 87 and 98, provided that account is taken of present-day realities and national interests, including stable socio-economic development and social harmony.

If only the Government would accept ILO guidance and respect its obligations under the Conventions, these objectives – including stable socio-economic development and social harmony, which already encapsulate some of the core tenets of social justice of the ILO – would be realized. But the Government continues to reject any guidance, conclusions and recommendations from the ILO and its supervisory system.

Instead, as is contained in the recent communication of the BKDP, it is dangerous to be a genuine and independent trade union, trade union activist or even member in Belarus. Independent trade unions cannot carry out their legitimate trade union activities; criminalization and imprisonment of trade unionists is the order of the day; national security is used as a pretext to ban or control trade unions.

On 4 March 2024, a new criminal case was opened against Mr Leanid Soudalenko, labour lawyer and activist of the Radio and Electronic Industry Workers Union, under section 361‑4 of the Criminal Code. He was forced to flee the country.

On 5 April 2024, Ms Volha Brytsikava, leader of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union was charged with “inciting racial, national, religious or other social hatred or discord” under section 130(1) of the Criminal Code, and sentenced to three years of imprisonment after a trial behind closed doors. Additionally, a new criminal case has been opened against her under section 361(1) of the Criminal Code, which carries a maximum penalty of six years of imprisonment and a fine.

The case of Ms Palina Sharenda-Panasiuk, a trade unionist of the Radio and Electronic Workers, must be mentioned. Since January 2024, there has been no contact with her. Ms Sharenda-Panasiuk was due to be released on 21 May this year but was transferred to a detention centre and a new (third) criminal case was opened against her. She was charged for the second time under section 411(2) of the Criminal Code for offences relating to so-called “malicious disobedience to the demands of administration of the correctional institution” (previously her sentence was extended by one year under the same provision of the Code).

The Government also deploys judicial harassment and public smearing to intimidate, defame and discredit trade unions. The courts have been used to declare the BKDP and Salidarnast – its organization formed in exile in 2022 following the forced dissolution of the BKDP – as extremists and terrorists. Salidarnast is banned in Belarus. Under section 19.11 of the Code on Administrative Offences, persons who distribute, produce, store or transport materials or interact with organizations such as the BKDP or Salidarnast, including subscribing to its social networks, is punishable, by a maximum penalty of administrative arrest of up to 30 days.

According to the BKDP, as of 7 May 2024, more than 50 trade unionists were under criminal persecution and 39 trade unionists are currently imprisoned. Twenty-one trade unionists who were released still have criminal charges hanging over them with additional restrictions, including a prohibition from leaving the city or country without police permission, an obligation to report to a police station on a weekly basis and a ban against engaging in certain professional activities. Even after completion of prison sentences, restrictions of freedom continue. Those released are kept on a list for constant monitoring and official control, including of their bank accounts and work activities. Once on that list, there is no process for being removed, so the requirements are essentially permanent. And this is imposed as an administrative measure, without judicial involvement.

Also, in January 2024, Mr Aliaksandr Yeudakimchyk, leader of the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers (SPM), died after a long illness following numerous administrative arrests for his trade union activities and the negative impact they had on his health.

Detained trade union leaders report that the conditions in which they are held amount to torture. They have no access to hygiene products or a change of clothes. They are not taken for a shower or fresh air; prison cells are overcrowded; prisoners are forced to sleep on the floor, on benches and even on tables; the lights are continuously on; and there is no warm water.

We remain deeply concerned about Mr Yarashuk, Chairperson of the BKDP and an ILO Governing Body member. The health of Mr Yarashuk is a major concern for us and yet he remains subjected to a specially restricted prison regime, with little opportunity to exercise, and with only one visit and one parcel allowed per year.

In her report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Belarus indicates that “yellow unions” are a cog in the wheel of state control and observes that the Trade Union Federation of Belarus (FPB) is not a genuine representative of workers’ interests and not independent from the State. Workers who do not join the FPB are also penalized as collective agreements, laying down basic guarantees, apply only to members of unions close to the Government and controlled by the authorities.

At this Conference, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) has filed a credentials objection challenging the FPB delegation, with evidence that those in the delegation, purporting to represent workers, are agents of the State and not workers or genuine and independent representative of workers. The only independent and genuine workers’ organization, the BKDP, has been dissolved and banned. The FPB must no longer be allowed to participate in ILO activities including future Conferences.

So, Chair, this is sadly the situation in Belarus regarding the implementation of its obligations under the Commission of Inquiry regarding Conventions Nos 87 and 98, as well as the subsequent recommendations of the supervisory bodies and the measures recommended by the Governing Body. Clearly, there has been no progress at all.

We strongly urge the Government to accept constructive dialogue.

Interpretation from Russian: Employer member, Belarus – I am speaking on behalf of the Confederation of Employers and Industrialists of the Republic of Belarus. Unfortunately, a year ago at the previous ILO Conference, we saw the adoption of a resolution against Belarus which led to bewilderment and confusion among the employers of our country. I think many people agree with me that any such restrictive measures affecting the rights of employers and workers will inevitably undermine businesses and business activity, as well as the development of social dialogue and partnership. They will make it difficult to implement collective bargaining agreements and to protect social rights. They might lead to a drop in wage levels and an increase in social tension. The resolution, which is supposed to promote decent work and wage levels, will actually lead to the deterioration of both.

I would like to recall that cooperation among the Republic of Belarus, its employers and the ILO has always been productive. We have cooperated with the Directors-General of the ILO, as well as Mr Kari Tapiola, who made a visit to our country. In the course of the direct contacts mission, the ILO actually made a positive assessment of the work that Belarus had done to implement the recommendations of the ILO and noted progress made. Such positive assessments have been echoed elsewhere in the ILO. However, in our very tangled and confused world, changes do take place and we now find ourselves once again discussing with you the so-called “Belarus question” in the ILO. We think this is undermining the authority of the ILO and we cannot agree that the Organization should become a tribunal for statements on issues which perhaps relate to human rights and certainly relate to politics, but do not, in any way, fall within the purview of a specialized agency of the United Nations system such as this one.

At the so-called “round-table”, held a week ago, before the official opening of the session of the Conference, we saw an attempt to prepare the ground to push this Committee to implement the so-called plan of action on the implementation of the resolution adopted last year. We have listened to the criticism. However, we would like to re-establish a positive and productive dialogue which will further the interests of our country and be based on the fundamental principles of the ILO.

We would like to continue our contacts and meetings to share the experience with the ILO and its Member States. This is the right time for that. What we need are discussions and assistance with regard to such issues such as collective bargaining relating to local level agreements, and general and tariffs agreements, negotiations of which we are to start soon for a two-year period. Any ILO support and assistance would be welcome.

We think the ILO should be in the vanguard of encouraging social and labour reforms in any country and we would be happy to accept any suggestions or recommendations made by the Organization. We understand that any barriers put in the way of business are going to undermine trade and business contacts, and they are certainly not going to help solve political issues or disagreements. The purpose of progressive business associations in Belarus is to boost business, create more jobs, improve the well-being of our workers and deal with all the other fundamental issues of the ILO. We will be happy to carry out a business and professional dialogue with the ILO committees and the Employers’ group. We think we see the situation and reflect on these issues in the same way. We urge you not to support the draft decision on Belarus because its purpose is ultimately to actually make the situation of both employers and workers in our country much worse. We want to have positive relations in our work with the ILO, positive relations between our workers and our employers, and between Belarus and the ILO.

Worker member, Belarus – I am speaking on behalf of 15 Industrial Trade Unions that together make up the FPB, which encompass almost 4 million people. They have asked me to come here today to tell you how things really stand in Belarus and to protect their good name. Today we have 4 million workers in our Federation from all sectors of our economy and that is what I represent.

As things stand today, the FPB includes 24,000 primary trade union organizations on behalf of the workers of our country, these primary-level trade unions have already concluded around 18,000 collective agreements. It is at the initiative of these trade unions that these local normative legal acts include norms that provide employees with various guarantees and bonuses over and above what is established by the Labour Code. For instance, this includes extra holidays, material payments and other benefits, guarantees for the extension of labour contracts, and special measures to support vulnerable groups, such as young persons and older persons. Employers are obliged to implement these standards; and indeed they put into practice all of the provisions of the collective agreements.

I will give you a few figures. Last year alone, at the request of the trade unions, employers redressed around 48,000 infringements of labour legislation. Also, more than 50,000 infringements of occupational health and safety standards have been redressed. At the request of workers, employers were able to pay additional benefits to workers that amounted to the equivalent of around 1 million dollars. And that is far from everything that has been achieved.

All this shows that in law and in practice in Belarus there is every opportunity available for independent and productive work to be done to defend the interest of workers. Nonetheless, we have to admit that at the 111th Session of the International Labour Conference, we know that an article 33 resolution was adopted in relation to Belarus.

It is a cause of deep regret to us that the ILO did not take into account documentary proof of the situation in our country and continues to go along with an argument that is simply seeking to harm and damage workers in Belarus. An open letter was signed by the workers of Belarus to the ILO calling for an end to pressure on the country, on both employers and workers of Belarus. More than a thousand videos have been sent where people have talked about the situation quite honestly and have given a clear picture of the situation in our country. Sadly, we have had no response to any of this from the ILO to date and we see that the ILO is continuing to listen to those who are seeking to in fact harm the people of our country, the workers, their families and children. Today, for the fourth year, we see that the ILO is dancing to the tune of those who are in fact applying unlawful sanctions against our country. And it is representatives of those countries who have dragged the ILO into this situation, where they are working against the interest of the workers of Belarus. We see how sophisticated they are in what they do. They deliberately hide information about the lack of support from many countries for what they are doing. We see the kind of efforts that are made to prevent us from speaking up on behalf of the trade unions of Belarus. They are trying to prevent us from speaking out loud and clear to defend our legitimate interest. Let us be quite honest: today we have representatives of Western countries who in essence are giving developing countries a choice. Either you agree with us or you become the next target for attacks and harassment. Those trade unions that do not agree are somehow the wrong kind of trade unions. Is that democracy? Decisions and the ILO’s position on Belarus run counter to the principles that underpin the work of this Organization. Sanctions and restrictions harm all workers. They also destroy economic stability, and create unfair and unequal conditions. They infringe the rights of workers and this is being shown by the experience of many countries that have suffered from unlawful sanctions and restrictions. I call on everyone here to be fair and just, and to act in accordance with the provisions of the ILO Constitution. The ILO should protect the interests of workers from all countries. It does not have the right to act in a way that follows a political instruction of a particular group of countries. Its task is to preserve and defend labour rights, and the rights of workers. Following the adoption of the resolution on article 33 with reference to Belarus, our situation has been discussed twice at the Governing Body. That discussion raised many issues but one thing was very clear: the FTUB is ready to cooperate with the ILO based on the principles of mutual respect and due account being taken of the national interests of the Republic of Belarus. I call on the Committee to take the first step to make that a reality and to include in its conclusions a recommendation to that effect, to be put to the Governing Body. I call on everyone here to support the Republic of Belarus today.

Government member, Belgium – I have the honour of speaking on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. The candidate countries: Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova, and the European Free Trade Association countries Iceland and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, align themselves with this statement.

The EU 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 in developing and promoting international labour standards and supervising their application.

We deeply regret the persistent failure of the Belarusian authorities to comply with their obligations under ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98. One year has passed since the adoption of article 33 resolution at the Conference. Yet, no initiative has been taken by the authorities to reengage in the process towards implementation of the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry. Once again, we call on Belarus to take all the necessary measures to meet the obligations it committed itself to by becoming a member of the ILO and by voluntarily and willingly ratifying most of the ILO fundamental Conventions.

Since the 2020 presidential elections, recently followed by parliamentary and local elections, none of which were free or fair, we see a steep and continuing deterioration of the human rights situation, including grave violations of labour rights, especially of freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. The situation has further worsened since Belarus’ involvement in Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. We strongly condemn the continuing persecution and intimidation campaigns against independent trade unionists, civil society organizations, democratic opposition forces and all other segments of Belarusian society. We remain deeply concerned by the arbitrary arrest and detention of trade union leaders and members for holding or participating in peaceful assemblies or for exercising other civil liberties pursuant to their legitimate trade union activities.

Given the gravity of the situation, the European Union has imposed seven successive rounds of sanctions since 2020, among others, to address the unprecedented level of repression, including labour rights violations.

We thank the Office for organizing the high-level roundtable to discuss freedom of association in Belarus in line with the action plan adopted by the Governing Body. This event sheds further light on the disproportionate and illegitimate use of violence, fines, detentions, arrests and the negation of fair trials for trade unionists and human rights defenders. We encourage further coordinated efforts in view of making progress in the full implementation of the Conference resolution.

We strongly urge Belarus to receive as a matter of urgency an ILO tripartite mission to gather information on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and subsequent recommendations of ILO supervisory bodies. This mission must be enabled to visit the independent trade union leaders and activists in prison and detention. We also request Belarus to cooperate in the appointment of an ILO special representative.

The European Union deplores the dissolution of independent trade unions, undermining the legitimacy of social dialogue institutions. We repeat our call to the authorities to abandon their policy of destroying the independent trade union movement. We regret that the Supreme Court rejected the complaints filed by free trade unions in relation to their liquidation, and the lack of impartiality and independence of the judiciary system.

We deplore that political prisoners remain incarcerated in appalling conditions and express grave concern over numerous reports of deaths in detention. We urge the authorities to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, and we call for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners, including trade unionists, and their effective rehabilitation. We regret that even after being released, trade unionists remain on blacklists and continue to face charges and persecution.

We are particularly concerned about the conditions of imprisonment of several political prisoners, including Mr Yarashuk, a Governing Body member, Mr Berasneu, an independent trade union leader, and a union activist, Ms Palina Sharenda-Panasiuk. We call upon the responsible Belarusian authorities to uphold humanitarian principles, provide necessary and timely medical care and refrain from any action which would further impair the situation.

We strongly support the reiterated call of the Committee of Experts to the Belarus authorities to amend a number of legal provisions that restrict or criminalize the exercise of civil and trade union rights.

We reaffirm our strong support for the application of article 33 of the ILO Constitution and will take measures in line with the Conference 2023 resolution as needed.

The European Union and its Member States are committed to working with the ILO and its constituents to secure compliance by the authorities of Belarus with the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations.

Government member, Sweden – I have the honour of speaking on behalf of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland and Sweden. We align ourselves with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union and its Member States.

Our countries reiterate our strong support to the ILO in its indispensable role to develop, promote and supervise the application of ratified international labour standards.

We deeply regret the persistent refusal of the authorities of Belarus to observe the fundamental conventions of the ILO, including Conventions Nos 87 and 98, which they voluntarily ratified.

We note with great regret that since last year’s adoption of the resolution concerning the application of article 33 of the ILO Constitution, and despite repeated attempts at engagement by the ILO supervisory bodies, the situation of human rights, including labour rights, in Belarus, has continued to deteriorate.

We remain deeply concerned about more than 1,400 political prisoners still kept in custody by Belarusian authorities for participating in peaceful assemblies or for exercising their human rights. Many of them are trade union leaders and activists.

The authorities are expanding control over various types of professional groups. In the private sector they oblige company owners and directors to control their employees in terms of their loyalty to the regime. In the public sector the employees received a KGB manual on how to behave to avoid responsibility for extremism.

Our countries are also concerned by the Belarusian authorities’ decision not to renew the passports of their citizens abroad, as was reported also by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). This practice is meant to force such citizens to return to Belarus and potentially face persecution, in violation of their human rights.

As recognized by the Committee of Experts, the Belarusian authorities once again merely reiterate the information they have previously provided and maintain that the Committee of Experts misunderstands and misinterprets the situation on the ground. They expect us to believe that labour rights in their country are respected, that prisoners are serving well-deserved sentences and people have full freedom of association and right to organize. They consequently refuse to receive an ILO tripartite mission, fail to provide copies of judicial decisions as requested by the Committee of Experts and continue to dissolve the independent trade union organizations.

We reaffirm our strong support for the application of article 33 of the ILO Constitution and support an effective follow-up to the 2023 Conference resolution.

We demand full transparency of law enforcement proceedings which bear the hallmarks of political cases. All trade union leaders and members arrested merely for exercising their human rights must be immediately released. We also expect Belarusian authorities to allow visits to the independent trade union leaders and activists in prison or detention.

We call on Belarus to immediately and unconditionally cease its aid to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, which severely impacts Ukrainian lives and livelihoods, including workers, employers and their families.

We thank the Office for its coordinated engagement with the relevant international organizations and United Nations special procedure mandate holders of the Human Rights Council, in particular for having organized the high-level roundtable to discuss the grave situation of trade union rights in Belarus. We also commend the Director-General’s continued efforts to seek access to and ascertain the conditions of arrest, detention and welfare of the detained unionists.

To conclude, we extend our gratitude to the ILO constituents and international institutions for implementing measures in accordance with the 2023 Conference resolution. We also urge those who have not yet done so to take appropriate measures in line with the resolution, as requested. We continue to support the holding of a special sitting of this Committee for the purpose of discussing the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 by Belarus and its implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, so long as this Member has not been shown to have fulfilled its obligations.

Government member, Canada – I am speaking on behalf of the Governments of Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Canada. We thank the Committee of Experts for their most recent observations about the situation in Belarus, and note the written information provided by the authorities of Belarus to the Committee on 17 May 2024 regarding their implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. We also thank the Director-General for his report informing this Committee of the latest developments, and the Office for convening the high-level roundtable on 28 May 2024 to discuss freedom of association in Belarus with the participation of three United Nations Special Rapporteurs.

The case of Belarus has been monitored closely by the ILO for many years now, and we believe that the resolution adopted by the Conference in 2023 under article 33 of the ILO Constitution was a crucial step aimed at realizing social justice in Belarus given the long-standing disregard by the authorities of Belarus for the ILO’s fundamental principles and rights at work, the ILO’s Constitution and its supervisory system.

Persistent and widespread human and labour rights violations and abuses perpetuated against workers and trade unionists for exercising their fundamental rights at work are well documented and widely recognized. We remain deeply concerned at continued reports from the BKDP, United Nations Special Rapporteurs and others, of mass repression and criminal action taken against workers for exercising their fundamental labour rights, and of trade union leaders and activists being subjected to cruel, inhuman treatment in Belarusian prisons.

We are also concerned about reports of a widespread practice of forced enrolment in Government-led trade unions that are not independent.

Notwithstanding such overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the Belarusian authorities continue to systematically deny any violations of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and maintain that the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry have been implemented. We deplore the fact that the Belarusian authorities continue to refuse an ILO tripartite mission to observe and assess the steps taken towards the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98, as well as to visit detained and imprisoned trade unionists to assess their health and well-being, despite repeated recommendations by the ILO supervisory bodies and requests from the Director‑General. It is imperative that the authorities of Belarus cooperate fully with the ILO to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the ILO supervisory bodies. To that end, we urge the Belarusian authorities to do the following, without any further delay.

First, release trade unionists that remain in detention for participating in peaceful assemblies or exercising their fundamental right of freedom of association, including ILO Governing Body member Mr Yarashuk, and to drop all related charges.

Second, accept as a matter of urgency an ILO tripartite mission for the purpose of independently assessing the status of implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and subsequent recommendations of ILO supervisory bodies, including a visit to the independent trade union leaders and activists in prison or detention.

Third, engage with the ILO regarding the appointment of a special representative of the Director-General to supervise all action in Belarus related to the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and ILO supervisory bodies.

Finally, we encourage all ILO constituents to continue taking all possible measures in accordance with the 2023 Conference resolution with a view to bringing Belarus into compliance with its obligations under the ILO Constitution, Convention Nos 87 and 98.

Government member, Cuba – We thank the Government of Belarus for the updated information that it has presented this morning. It is important to highlight the willingness of the Belarussian authorities to engage in respectful dialogue and cooperation with the social partners and the ILO, as stressed by the Government in a number of communications, including this morning.

The allegations of a complete lack of headway by Belarus in implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and of a lack of progress are, as has been mentioned, totally unfounded and do not reflect reality. The Office itself has provided information on measures adopted by the Government of Belarus in relation to a number of recommendations and the progress made through those measures, within, of course, the framework of the country’s legal system.

It is a fact for all to see that constant progress has been made in Belarus’ implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, something that has also been noted by the Organization’s supervisory bodies.

The Government of Belarus has demonstrated that it is willing to work with the Office on issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions, going so far as to invite ILO experts to participate in internal processes. However, political motives. are continuing to have a negative impact in this respect. This very morning we have, once again, heard political allegations that have nothing to do with the world of work.

We reiterate our concern that Government replies to the ILO supervisory machinery are not afforded due analysis on an equal footing with the allegations made by the social partners. The line between trade union matters and political issues frequently seems to be irrelevant to the supervisory bodies. The approach that should be prioritized with respect to Belarus is one of cooperation and joint, mutually agreed work, rather than punishment and coercion.

We also reaffirm the vital need in all forums and settings to fully respect the sovereignty and self-determination of Member States, which is the basis for any government to be able to honour its commitments. In the analysis of any case we must all favour negotiation, respectful dialogue, assistance, the search for consensus and cooperation, rather than promoting confrontation.

To conclude, I would like to emphasize the importance of commitment to tripartite dialogue, the search for consensus and the consent of the country concerned, which are fundamental prerequisites for achieving any progress.

Worker member, China – The Chinese trade unions have noted that Belarus has achieved steady progress in relevant areas. The FPB is a legitimate organization representing 4 million workers of all sectors in the country and, as just mentioned by the delegates of the workers in Belarus, they have over 24,000 grassroot organizations and have concluded over 18,000 collective agreements, the content of which has been put in practice, which is very important.

All of those collective agreements have provided guarantees for decent wages for workers, safe working conditions and stable labour relations. Moreover, the unions of Belarus have the opportunity to participate in the development of legislation concerning workers’ rights and influences the country’s employment policies. We think that applying article 33 of the ILO Constitution against Belarus may have a negative impact on the country’s economy and worsen the situation of the workers and their families of the country. Therefore, we need to take everything into consideration at this point. I call on the Committee to take a holistic view of the issue of Belarus.

Government member, Algeria – We have listened with great attention to the intervention of the Government of Belarus in which it stated that it has taken due account of the recommendations in the report of the Commission of Inquiry appointed under article 26 of the ILO Constitution.

Algeria welcomes the good will and constant commitment of the Government of Belarus to meet its international obligations. We also appreciate the positive, significant measures adopted by the Belarussian Government, particularly taking into account the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. We have noted the efforts made by the Government, with most of the recommendations having already been broadly implemented and progress made towards others.

Algeria is of the view that the considerations expressed by the Government are wholly praiseworthy and encourages it to pursue its efforts and work with the Office to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. We feel that the situation is positive, particularly given the efforts made to facilitate the registration of trade unions and the planned necessary steps to protect trade union rights and combat all forms of anti-union discrimination.

Government member, Azerbaijan – We took positive note of the information presented by the Government of Belarus and welcome their efforts in developing standards in the sphere of social and labour relations. We commend the willingness of the Belarusian authorities to continue constructive cooperation with the ILO. At the same time, we encourage the ILO and the Committee to avoid politicization in its work with Belarus, which could produce a dangerous precedent and a negative tendency within the Organization.

Government member, Lao People’s Democratic Republic – At the outset, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic takes note of the report by the General Affairs Committee and sincerely thanks Belarus for the comprehensive updates on the current ILO-related cooperation and work in Belarus.

My delegation commends Belarus for the continued efforts in fulfilling its obligations under ILO-related Conventions and mechanisms, including the implementation of the decisions and recommendations adopted during the previous Governing Body sessions and Conferences; the Government’s guarantee to its citizens of the right to work, especially to the most vulnerable and marginalized groups of people; the successful conduct of meetings of the country’s main tripartite social partnership bodies; and the awareness-raising campaigns on ILO work and initiatives carried out country-wide.

The Lao People’s Democratic Republic reiterates that the unilateral coercive measures (UCMs) and sanctions against any ILO Member States are unproductive and not an effective way forward. We emphasize that the work of the ILO and its mechanisms should be conducted through genuine dialogues and cooperation with the consent of the host country, which can be done by providing capacity-building and technical assistance in accordance with the specific needs and priorities of the country concerned.

Worker member, Eritrea – Conventions Nos 87 and 98 are fundamental Conventions to be implemented by Member States to their fullest capacity. The case brought against the Republic of Belarus at the 111th Session of the Conference intends to outline the Belarus Government’s failure to comply with implementation of these Conventions. Additionally, based on the recommendation of the ILO Governing Body, the 111th Session of the Conference passed a resolution under article 33 of the ILO Constitution concerning the Republic of Belarus and suggested the Governments, Employers and Workers reassess any relation with Belarus. The National Confederation of Eritrean Workers (NCEW) opposes this action and advocates for more dialogue to assess the supposed violation and to create a conducive environment for social dialogue, which we as workers see as an effective tool for mitigation. Furthermore, the NCEW believes that the case brought against the Republic of Belarus is politically motived. When the case against the Republic of Belarus was raised, we initiated discussions with Belarus trade unions and gathered important information about the trade union movement in Belarus. The current labour laws in Belarus have provided a favourable environment for the FPB to expand its unionization and organizing efforts. As a result, the number of trade unions rose to 24,000 along with the recognized 18,000 collective bargaining agreements. The FPB has achieved a unionization rate of 4 million members, demonstrating the right to organize, associate and engage in collective bargaining agreements. In 2023 alone, 1,300 new unions were established. In total, about 10,000 organizations were established in 2015. Thus, the NCEW advocates for open and authentic social dialogue practice to improve the condition of workers in all aspects. The NCEW believes that the ILO standards should be used to enhance workers’ conditions at bilateral and tripartite levels. The progress of the FPB over the past few years indicates a positive trend towards achieving social justice. We therefore call for an honest discussion with and support for the Republic of Belarus.

Government member, Colombia – In accordance with Advisory Opinion OC-27/21 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, “Trade union freedom or the rights of trade union are fundamental human rights that, together with the rights to collective bargaining, to organize and to strike, constitute the foundations for the protection and promotion of the right to work in just and favorable conditions […]”.

For years, Colombia also experienced an onslaught of violence and anti-union repression, resulting in not only the weakening of trade union organizations, but also the deaths of over 1,200 social and trade union leaders who were murdered between 2015 and 2021, facts that both trade union leaders and human rights defenders have been denouncing for years before various international bodies.

Today, Colombia has transitioned to a Government of change which respects freedom of association, and which advocates for a labour reform that allows for the harmonization of our regulations with the recommendations that the various ILO supervisory bodies have issued to Colombia for years with regard to trade union matters, collective bargaining and the right to strike.

Colombia has experienced the harshness of anti-union repression, and for this reason and because of the international solidarity that distinguishes our Government, we stand with the people of Belarus, with their workers and trade union organizations, in the situation through which they have been living during this period. We reject all acts of violence, detentions and repression that may be occurring, and support the resolution concerning the measures recommended by the Governing Body under article 33 of the ILO Constitution for this case in June 2023.

Our Government shares the deep concern expressed by the Committee of Experts regarding the list of 47 trade union leaders and activists who are currently being detained or whose freedom of movement is restricted, which was communicated by the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions.

We respectfully call for tripartite social dialogue, respect for civil liberties, and the protection and guarantee of freedom of association to which we, the ILO constituents, have committed ourselves.

Interpretation from Chinese: Government member, China – I thank the representative of Belarus for their introduction. We have read thoroughly the detailed supplementary information submitted by the Government of Belarus. Over the years, the Government of Belarus has taken concrete measures to further simplify and optimize the trade union registration procedures and also held training programmes with ILO. It has reactivated the tripartite Committee, held a series of seminars and organized several tripartite consultations. In recent years, Belarus has witnessed the gradual reduction in unemployment and a steady increase in income levels, which merit full recognition and appreciation from the Committee. We note that the Government of Belarus has earnestly addressed and implemented most of the 12 recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. This advancement reflects its efforts and progress and its cooperation with the ILO, for which we express our appreciation.

China has a consistent position on this case with a specialized United Nations agency and the only tripartite international organization. The ILO and its secretariat are primarily tasked with serving Member States instead of sanctioning. The supervisory mechanism is of a technical nature and is intended to assist Member States in better fulfilling their obligations, rather than inflicting harm on the rights and interests of their workers and employers through sanctions.

From the ILO Constitution to the Philadelphia Declaration, and from the 1998 Declaration, 2008 Declaration to the Centenary Declaration, these documents all advocate the advancement of justice. We reiterate that invoking article 33 of the Constitution to impose sanctions on Belarus has already harmed and will continue to harm the rights and interests of workers and employers, and to seriously impact the country’s economic and social development. We firmly oppose the use of such extreme measures against this Member State that is fulfilling its obligations. The mechanism must not be swayed by political influences; the politicization and instrumentalization of this mechanism would seriously damage the credibility of the ILO.

In any country ruled by law, no rights outshine those laws, transgressions of which by any individual – regardless of their status – must be met with legal consequences.

We urge the Conference Committee and ILO constituents to consider the position and information provided by the Government of Belarus, to respect its sovereignty and refrain from interfering in its internal affairs. We encourage the Office to approach this case in an objective, active and constructive manner, and to safeguard the progress and interests of the workers and employers, thereby driving its economic and social development.

Worker member, Netherlands – This intervention is also on behalf of German and Swiss workers. The Belarusian Government repeatedly declares here that there are no political prisoners in Belarus. The sentenced trade unionists are considered common criminals. But the Committee and the international community know very well that this is not true. There are at least 41 trade unionists in jail at this very moment. The prison conditions for these trade unionists as political prisoners in Belarus are extremely harsh in comparison with those of “common criminals”.

First of all, the State marks them with a yellow label sewn onto their prison uniforms.

Prison administrations artificially create conditions so they can condemn trade unionists to disciplinary sanctions for minor violations, such as an open button, a bed that is not made straight, etc. These sanctions can be of various kinds: withdrawal of parcels or visits, placement in solitary confinement, transfer to a prison regime.

I just want to explain to you what placement in solitary confinement means in Belarus. It is a tiny cell with extremely low temperatures in winter, high temperatures in summer and extremely high humidity. There are no mattresses or bedsheets, deprivation of personal belongings, no walks and no right to correspondence.

There are many types of disciplinary measures, but their aim is the same – to destroy human dignity and make the lives of our brothers and sisters in prison unbearable.

One important example. His name has already been mentioned: Mr Yarashuk – the President of the BKDP, a Vice-President of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), a member of the ILO Governing Body – was additionally persecuted by an unlawful change of prison regime from “ordinary” to “strict” and transferred to prison in November 2023. The change of prison regime is the hardest sanction.

The consequences are:

• the monthly purchase of food and basic necessities is limited to one basic unit (about €11);
• one short visit per year is allowed (of four hours in the presence of a member of the prison guards);
• one parcel or package may be received during the year;
• a one-hour walk may be taken per day.

If I had time I could give more examples of abuse of other imprisoned trade unionists, such as:

• Mr Artsiom Zharnak – Chairperson of the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers at Minsk Automotive Plant (MAZ).
• Mr Aliaksandr Mishuk – Vice-Chair of the BNP.
• Mr Aliaksandr Kapshul – a BNP labour lawyer.

Interpretation from Russian: Government member, Russian Federation – We fully share the assessment of the situation that has been provided here by the distinguished representative of the Government of Belarus vis-à-vis the special sitting. The Russian position with reference to the measures that have been taken against Belarus is well-known. This is something we have said repeatedly, and indeed we explained those views at the 111th Session of the Conference and also at many different meetings of the Governing Body. I do not have much time now so I will just highlight the key points.

If you look at the resolution that was adopted at the 111th Session, that is to say the article 33 resolution on Belarus, this is something that is very discriminatory and politicized in nature. In fact, in a short period of time we have seen that the Government of Belarus has been able to make progress and build on its long-standing cooperation, particularly by giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The steps taken by the Government have been repeatedly commended by representatives of the ILO over the years, therefore most the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry as things stand today have already been adopted. That being so, the basis for any kind of sanctions to be adopted in accordance with article 33 simply does not exist because the Government has shown that it is willing to enter into constructive interaction with the ILO on the issues concerned.

The allegations against Belarus that it harasses trade union representatives, that it attacks freedom of association and other rights is simply based on information from the BKDP.

This is a structure that has now been terminated by a decision taken by the Supreme Court of Belarus. It is not entitled to operate in Belarus. It does not represent the workers of Belarus. Therefore, we now see that it has become a political organization that seeks in fact to operate in a way that is hostile to the interests of the State of Belarus today.

We therefore consider that what happened back in 2022 was a purely political decision and it was intended to exert pressure on the Government of Belarus as a result of political action in the country and political events there.

We are against the politicization of the work of the ILO. We are categorically against that and we are therefore against the plan of action to give effect to the recommendation adopted at the 111th Conference, that is to say, the article 33 resolution.

In particular, if we look at today’s special sitting, and indeed the roundtable that took place last week, we see once again that this is simply an attempt to exert political pressure on Belarus.

We therefore categorically reject these anti-Belarus measures that have been used as a pretext for this special sitting and we call for a vote before any decision is taken on this.

Worker member, Japan – One year after the Conference adopted a resolution on Belarus, to our regret, we see no progress. Moreover, we see the continuation of repression against workers, activists and leaders of independent trade unions. For example, in August 2023, Ms Volha Brytsikava, the leader of the BNP at Naftan oil refinery, was arrested. She was sentenced to three years in prison in a closed court hearing in March 2024, and a new criminal case has been opened and she faces up to six more years in prison.

Mr Yarashuk was transferred to a cell regime, which significantly worsened his conditions and affected his health. He began to have problems with blood pressure. During this time, there were mass arrests at workplaces in Navapolatsk, Lida, Mozyr, Hrodna, Minsk and other cities in Belarus. We know of about 150 people being arrested. As a result, many of them were fined, imprisoned and dismissed without the right to find employment in another State enterprise.

Release from prison does not mean the end of persecution. Activists have to report to the police every day, to be checked and their travel and work rights are restricted, as they continue to be tainted with the stigma of being extremists. Some of them are threatened with new criminal proceedings. Any activity in the name of independent trade unions is threatened with criminal sanctions. As a result, independent trade union activities are equated with criminal activities, which shows that the right to free trade union activity is completely absent. The existing trade unions in Belarus do not meet the criteria of independence and democracy. They are part of a dictatorial system and cannot be perceived as representatives of Belarusian workers.

Despite the unwillingness of the Belarusian State to accept the constructive proposals of the International Labour Office and the Governing Body, we must continue to look for ways to fully implement the ILO resolution in order to normalize the situation in Belarus.

We reiterate our demand to send a tripartite mission to Belarus to gain access to the imprisoned trade unionists, release trade unionists from prison and bring independent trade unions back into the country.

This serious infringement of a fundamental right, freedom of association and the right to organize and collective bargaining under Conventions Nos 87 and 98, is not only the issue of Belarus or Europe, but it is also an issue for all workers throughout the world. That is why the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC-RENGO), the Japanese union, is seriously concerned at this issue.

We sincerely wish and request the Government of Belarus to change its attitude and accept our requests so that the workers of Belarus can enjoy fundamental workers’ rights.

Worker member, Sweden – I am speaking on behalf of the Nordic trade unions in Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.

Once you have served your sentence you have paid your debt to society. It is a basic rule of law. But not in Belarus. And certainly not if you are a trade unionist in Belarus, unjustly condemned in the first place.

I met a fellow trade unionist from Belarus who had escaped from there. After serving a prison sentence of several years, in appallingly bad circumstances, he had thought that once free from prison he would be able to resume his old life. But no. He found himself branded an extremist, which made it impossible for him to continue in his profession. Very few other jobs were available to him. Any would-be employer risked State reprisals. He needed permission from the police to leave his home town. The police visited his home on a daily basis, and he was ordered to report in person once a week to the local police station. His bank account was monitored and ordinary bank services, such as getting a pay card or a bank loan, were not allowed. When he spoke of his ordeals to people residing outside Belarus, a new criminal case was opened against him. He managed to escape from Belarus and now lives in exile. When he left Belarus, he not only left his home and friends, but also his ageing parents, whom he will most likely never meet again. Maybe he will be able to move back home, meet his friends and resume his profession again, but only if there is change in Belarus. And we in this room have the power to be a part of that change.

Belarus is a country in want of democracy, in want of basic human rights. To be a trade unionist operating under Convention No. 87 does not make you an extremist, it makes you a responsible citizen, working to better others.

The Nordic trade unions call upon Member States to provide humanitarian assistance to trade unionists forced into exile and we urge the Government of Belarus to receive an ILO tripartite mission and to comply with Convention No. 87.

Government member, Turkmenistan – Turkmenistan welcomes the distinguished delegation of Belarus and expresses gratitude for the detailed information provided on the current situation in relation to the implementation of Conventions Nos 87 and 98, as well as the related recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. At the outset, we would like to note the efforts made by the Government of Belarus to promote full employment of the population, ensure occupational safety and security, ensure decent working conditions and a number of other fundamental norms. I would like to highlight the measures taken by the Government of Belarus to maintain dialogue with the social partners: the resumption of the work of the tripartite council for the improvement of the legislation in the social and labour sphere in 2023 is one of the examples of the commitment of the Belarusian side to its obligations. Turkmenistan would also like to draw attention to the need to seek dialogue with the Government or the social partners; a position of pressure cannot be the best way to build constructive cooperation aimed at positive results. In conclusion, Turkmenistan wishes the Government of Belarus a successful discussion.

Worker member, United Kingdom – I speak on behalf of the Workers of the United Kingdom, the United States and of France. The changing world of work is a constant challenge for unions, which must keep pace with the transformation of traditional workplaces to both defend workers’ rights, but also to reach and organize those workers. Many union movements, including those of the United Kingdom, United States and France, are developing new approaches and using all available digital tools to bridge the divide between workers and workplaces to more effectively organize and represent members, perhaps an ingredient in this year’s welcome rise in trade union membership in the United Kingdom.

But, if we were denied the right to use technology, it would strike at the very heart of our ability to organize and protect those members. Even worse if the workers could be prosecuted for just reading what we told them.

Such is the situation in Belarus. Like us, workers there use the available media: social media, popular and fairly secure means of communication such as Messenger, Telegram, Instagram etc. In 2020, unions quite naturally used these channels as organizing tools to communicate with workers.

Then, however, new definitions of ”extremism” were introduced by the Government. Previously used to suppress religious fundamentalism and racism, these definitions abruptly morphed to encompass a vast array of independent thought and expression, including trade union ideals.

Naturally, since all the communication channels listed above often featured the sharing of articles from the banned independent media, it meant that the channels themselves were deemed carriers of extremism, and therefore those that used them as extremists.

This was used to justified, inter alia: many politically motivated arrests of labour leaders; the closure of trade unions, such as the independent Belarusian Union of Miners and Chemical Workers at Grodno Azot; and the liquidation of the Belarus Independent Trade Union (BNP) as an alleged union of extremists involved in extremist activities and the dissemination of extremist materials.

The information sources of the Belarusian exile trade unionists (Salidarnast), which are aimed at Belarusian workers, were labelled as extremist materials after the ILO Governing Body meeting in March 2024. This means that since March, workers who read these materials – and I stress just to read them, not necessarily act on them or share them with others - may be subject to administrative detention. Simply for reading. Such detention is not considered a good reason for absence from work. This leads to dismissal with the categorization of not being loyal to the State, which further complicates the search for a new job.

We know that access to the rights enshrined by the ILO depends on the ability to communicate those rights to those at work. Trade unions need to be free to explain freedom of association, collective bargaining and other rights, without fear of persecution. Otherwise, not only will trade unionists themselves suffer, but so will those workers deprived of independent information and, ultimately, their rights.

Trade union activism is not extremism.

Government member, Kazakhstan – The Kazakhstani delegation would like to thank the Government representative of Belarus for the report. We note the commitment by the Government of Belarus to observing ILO Conventions and welcome the progress made by the Government in responding to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

We welcome the pursuit of a policy to support the rights of workers, as well as the measures taken at the national level to develop social dialogue. We note the openness of the Government to address the observations of the ILO supervisory bodies and encourage the Government to continue working closely with the ILO in this regard. We believe in the importance of dialogue and cooperation, as enshrined in the ILO Constitution, and note that some of the measures proposed under article 33 with regard to reconsidering bilateral relations with Belarus might be seen as contradictory to the principle of social dialogue. Once implemented, they could have a negative impact on the well-being of the people of Belarus.

At the same time, my delegation encourages the Government of Belarus to address the concerns expressed today through constructive and mutually beneficial dialogue with all actors.

Worker member, Indonesia – According to the update submitted by the BKDP to the Director-General of the ILO, there are seven women activists and leaders of independent trade unions in Belarusian prisons, penal colonies and under house arrest. Among them are mothers of young children, union organizers, chairpersons of industrial unions at chemical plants, medics, accountants – they are called extremists by the State. We call them political prisoners. We know that trade union work is not extremism.

Our sisters have been sentenced to prison terms of between 2 and 11 years for their union work, for their views, for building networks of workers. Our solidarity and worldwide support help them and their families in this difficult time when the regime is imprisoning them and wants the world to forget them and their names – Hanna Ablab, Volha Barushka, Hanna Karneyenka, Sviatlana Sakovich, Palina Sharenda-Panasiuk, Halina Smirnova and Volha Brytsikava.

Our sister Volha Brytsikava is the Chairperson of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union of Miners and Chemical Workers at NAFTAN Oil Refinery. In 2022, Volha was arrested and imprisoned for her anti-war position. During her time in prison, she was sentenced five times to 15 days in prison each time.

After Volha was released, she continued to help her comrades. And when all independent trade unions were dissolved, she was one of the few remaining trade union leaders who did not leave the country. In August 2023, after the Conference, the regime arrested her and a few other comrades.

She is now being investigated. She faces at least six years in prison. And since then, there has not been much information about her. There have been repeated massive arrests of NAFTAN workers, and Volha’s comrades have linked this to her case.

The trial against Volha Brytsikava is still ongoing. She is kept as a criminal in prison. The conditions in the remand prison are said to be the worst: overcrowded closed cells with no daylight or fresh air. A day of detention there is counted as a day and a half at sentencing.

Another sister of ours, Palina Sharenda-Panasiuk, has been sentenced to two years. She has been protesting against it, and reported that she was constantly tortured and severely punished by being placed in solitary confinement. But after two years, she was three times sentenced again and again for the violation of prison rules. Even though she has asked for a pardon, she remains in prison while we unions are campaigning for her release.

The places where female prisoners are sent to serve their sentences are penal colonies where they are made to work. Work in prison is nothing more than forced labour without health and safety regulations, without adequate pay (often less than 1 euro a month), mostly in the textile industry. In the case of female prisoners, it is an eight-hour shift in a sewing factory that makes uniforms for the military.

I call on the ILO to insist on sending a tripartite mission to Belarus to get access to trade unionists in Belarusian prisons. Release trade union leaders and activists from prison!

Government member, Switzerland – Switzerland thanks the Committee of Experts for its observations on the application of the fundamental Conventions Nos 87 and 98 by Belarus, and notes the information communicated by the Belarusian authorities on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. We also thank the Director-General for his updated report and for having recently organized a high-level roundtable on the situation in Belarus with the participation of special rapporteurs from the Human Rights Council.

The various reports brought to our attention paint a very worrying picture of the situation in Belarus. Persistent violations of workers’ rights and human rights have been credibly reported, in particular, numerous cases of the arbitrary imprisonment of workers and trade unionists who exercised their fundamental rights. Switzerland is also concerned by the reports of the forced enrolment of employees in government-led unions, which constitutes a violation of freedom of association.

Switzerland, like the Committee on Freedom of Association, deplores the complete absence of progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry, and the fact that the Government has not taken into account the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies and the conclusions of the Governing Body. We deeply regret that the Belarusian authorities continue to refuse the visit by an ILO tripartite mission, aimed at evaluating the measures taken by Belarus to implement its obligations under the ILO Conventions that it has ratified.

As Switzerland has already stated on several occasions, we reiterate our call to Belarus to respect its obligations as an ILO Member State by ensuring the application of and respect for fundamental principles and rights at work and the obligations arising from the ratification of the two fundamental Conventions Nos 87 and 98. To conclude, we once again call on Belarus to comply with its international obligations and, to this end, cooperate with the ILO and its bodies, and with all the other relevant international organizations.

Worker member, Brazil – Firstly, I would like to underscore the importance of the ILO supervisory system and, in particular, the work carried out by the Committee of Experts, for which I commend its Chairperson. As recalled yesterday in this plenary session, the observations of the Committee of Experts are so relevant and legitimate that they resonate in other international and national organizations.

In this regard, we must safeguard and reaffirm the mandate of the Committee of Experts in order for the Committee to continue to supervise compliance with international labour standards.

Taking this into account, with regard to the case that we are now examining, I would like to immediately reiterate the requests for information and documents made by the Committee of Experts, which are recorded in the report submitted to this Conference. The lack of response to the requests prevents a better understanding of the facts and indicates, at least, the lack of interest of the Government in demonstrating its compliance with the Conventions of this Organization. For us, responding to the requests of the Committee of Experts is an obligation of democratic States committed to the principles and purposes of the ILO.

It is also an obligation of States to ensure that freedom of association, which is a founding principle of this Organization, is guaranteed in law and in practice on a permanent basis.

I would also like to highlight the close relationship between civil and political rights, freedom of association and democracy. Contrary to the assertion by the Government, the full exercise of freedom of association presupposes that civil and political rights can also be exercised to their full extent and depth, as human rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.

A State cannot be said to be democratic if it does not allow, guarantee or defend the full exercise of such rights. Democracy is based on divergence, and values differences with a view to guaranteeing fundamental rights for all. It is only in dictatorships that people are imprisoned or detained for opposing the Government in place.

We recall that the current President of my country was persecuted and detained by the civil-military dictatorship that existed between 1964 and 1985 precisely for being a trade unionist. Owing to his actions as trade union leader and opponent of the regime, his activities were considered a danger to national security, public order and democracy. Is anybody today unaware of the commitment of President Lula to democracy and the uncompromising defence of it?

Based on these considerations, we reiterate the request by the Committee of Experts for all the union leaders and unionists detained for having participated in peaceful assemblies or for having exercised their civil liberties as part of their legitimate trade union activities, to be freed immediately and for all the related charges to be dropped.

Interpretation from Arabic: Government member, Egypt – We have taken careful note of all the written information submitted by the Government of Belarus. We have also noted the statement made here at the beginning of this sitting relating to the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. My delegation believes that it is important for all States to make efforts to give effect to ILO standards. This is important in order to achieve objectives in accordance with the role that should be played by the ILO. This is especially important when it comes to supporting national efforts to give effect to ILO standards and labour standards in general, and also to providing technical assistance to countries. All of this in recognition of the very important role played by all United Nations agencies, including the ILO, as part of the strengthening of multilateral international cooperation in this area. We therefore believe that we need to continue to pursue constructive dialogue between the Organization and the delegation of Belarus. This is important to allow us to find ways and means to put into practice labour standards, and to allow Belarus to meet its obligations in accordance with a number of Conventions, and particularly Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

Worker member, Kenya – Today is a special day. The day when we can and should protect not only our Belarusian brothers and sisters, but also the true values of the ILO. Freedom of association is a fundamental principle of the ILO’s work, set out in the Declaration of Philadelphia, the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and ILO Conventions.

The Belarusian Government has repeatedly failed to implement its international obligations with regard to the guarantee of freedom of association, and many others, for more than 20 years. Credible evidence from our Belarusian brothers and sisters, the BKDP and the international community, the ILO and other United Nations bodies demonstrate that freedom of association as such does not exist in Belarus. It has been stolen from Belarusian citizens and workers.

The Belarusian Government has dissolved all independent trade unions and appointed so-called workers’ representatives under its control, the “yellow” trade unions under the leadership of the FPB. It is very convenient for the Government to say that the independent trade unionists are violating national law when they themselves pass such laws that violate international norms, including those of the ILO.

Now it is impossible to create new independent trade unions in Belarus. The slightest trade union and human rights activity is a reason to be put in prison, as extremists. Our brothers and sisters are now serving real prison terms. It is very convenient to silence independent trade unionists when you have all the means to put them in prison. It entrenches both work and wage slavery and should not be condoned.

Now it is more important than ever for us to join all our forces to get ILO resolutions implemented in practice, with consequences for those who blatantly violate them. The Belarusian case is important not only for Belarusians, but also for all of us, for the credibility of this House, the ILO.

Worker member, Mali – We have studied the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning Belarus and are closely following the consideration of this matter and the arguments of all parties. In our view, the question of Belarus is being examined in an extremely biased, non-objective manner. The facts as presented confirm clearly that there is now no genuine reason to impose special sanctions on Belarus under the ILO Constitution. Belarussian law and practice allow the country’s workers to exercise their right to organize in unions. The national trade union confederation has broad, effective practices for protecting the rights of workers at all levels, while the country’s effective system of regulating industrial relations through collective bargaining merits particular attention. Thanks to the social partnership established in Belarus, workers their benefit from the necessary level of labour and social safeguards. That is the real, practical aim pursued by trade unions the world over. In this situation, we feel it necessary to highlight that, while the social partners in Belarus are gearing their efforts towards economic and social development, towards ensuring employment and decent incomes for citizens, some countries are attempting to thwart that progress by introducing sanctions and other restrictions.

The ILO, unfortunately, is following the same path, contrary to the overarching principles, aims and objective of our Organization. We believe that the ILO should not encourage or impose certain restrictive measures. Unfair approaches towards Belarus must be abandoned.

Interpretation from Arabic: Government member, Syrian Arab Republic – We note the position that has been taken here by the Government of Belarus. It has been stated that the Government of Belarus is giving effect to recommendations in accordance with the national interests of the country. We also note the information submitted by the delegation of Belarus, according to which most of the recommendations have indeed been implemented. We note what has been achieved in accordance with international standards and labour Conventions. Further, the Government has stated that it stands ready to enter into dialogue with the social partners and with the ILO. For all of these reasons, my delegation wishes to support the position taken by the Government of Belarus, based on a spirit of cooperation and dialogue between the Government, the Organization that we have here, the ILO, as well as other partners. We hope that by taking this approach we will achieve the desired outcome that is in the interests of everyone and will also respect the national interests of Belarus, its citizens and its national trade unions.

We wish to reassert the fact that we should not politicize the work of the ILO. That is something that runs counter to the goals and objectives of the Organization and its mandate. We need to respect the sovereignty of Member States and not intervene in domestic matters. That is fully in line with the principles underpinning the United Nations Charter. We should also recognize that the role of our Organization is to support and assist countries in applying ILO Conventions. Our role is not to impose measures and sanctions on any Member State, particularly not a Member State that has voluntarily joined this Organization and voluntarily ratified its Conventions.

Government member, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela – On behalf of the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, we welcome the information provided by the Government of the Republic of Belarus on the measures taken to implement the ILO Recommendations, which have been applied fully in some cases, while significant progress has been made in others.

The Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela reiterates that the measures imposed on the Government of the Republic of Belarus fall outside the scope of ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and their application is giving rise to consequences similar to the imposition of illegal unilateral coercive measures that run counter to the Charter of the United Nations and violate human rights in that country, including labour rights.

No sovereign State or organization bearing the banners of democracy should therefore encourage, support or be indifferent to such action. In addition to undermining the very essence of freedom of association, the protection of the right to organize and collective bargaining for workers, these actions are also eroding the broad dialogue that the Government of the Republic of Belarus has maintained with various trade unions and specialized bodies to promote and protect the labour rights of Belarusian workers.

The Venezuelan Government advocates frank and direct dialogue that includes the will of the various actors in Belarusian society to foster, among other priorities, social protection for its people and the promotion of their labour rights.

Finally, the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela calls on the ILO to facilitate cooperation and technical assistance with the Government of the Republic of Belarus, to continue efforts to make further progress on the recommendations and develop harmonious and lasting relations between the social partners in the country.

Government member, Nicaragua – The Government of Reconciliation and National Unity of Nicaragua rejects the manipulation of information on the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 in the Republic of Belarus. These false claims have been used to interfere in the internal affairs of the Republic of Belarus, to create disinformation, to increase political pressure on the legitimate Government of this sister nation and to justify unilateral Western restrictive measures against the Belarusian people.

Nicaragua recognizes the social and labour achievements of the Republic of Belarus, its efforts and action to guarantee citizens the right to work and to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 8, to promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.

We emphasize that over the last five years wages in the Republic of Belarus have increased by 1.7 per cent, which confirms the effectiveness of the policy pursued by the State. Persons with disabilities are constantly the focus of, and are guaranteed social support in the form of various social benefits, the provision of technical means of social rehabilitation and social services.

Regarding trade union rights, and particularly compliance with ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98, we emphasize that the Government of Belarus has repeatedly drawn the attention of the ILO supervisory bodies to the absence of any contradiction between national law and practice and the provisions of the ILO Conventions on freedom of association.

In Belarus, the rule of law prevails and the necessary conditions are in place for the establishment and exercise of the lawful activities of trade unions and their organizational structure.

As a Member of this Organization, we reiterate that it is the duty of all nations to foster friendly relations based on respect, the principle of equality of law and the obligation imposed on us by the Charter of the United Nations not to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of States. We reject manipulation and oppose unfounded accusations against the Republic of Belarus made for political purposes and based on disinformation.

Government member, United States of America – The United States thanks the Office for the update on the situation in Belarus, including the Director-General’s June 2024 report. We note the April 2024 written information from the Belarusian authorities.

One year has passed since the adoption of the resolution invoking article 33, and two decades have passed since the 2004 Commission of Inquiry. We are deeply concerned that the Belarusian authorities have failed to take meaningful action to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and of the ILO supervisory bodies to comply with Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The authorities have not cooperated with the ILO on the article 33 action plan, refusing an ILO tripartite mission to the country.

We deplore the ever-worsening repression of trade unionists and workers for exercising their fundamental labour rights, as reported by the BKDP. Trade union leaders and labour activists continue to be harassed, detained, monitored by the police, restricted in movement, and forced to flee the country.

We are extremely concerned for the well-being of the 39 Belarusian trade unionists still imprisoned under severe conditions, including forced labour and without access to or communication with their lawyers or families.

We urge the authorities in Belarus to immediately and unconditionally release trade unionists imprisoned for exercising their fundamental labour rights, including the ILO Governing Body member Mr Aliaksandr Yarashuk, who has been detained since 2022 under inhumane conditions, and Ms Palina Sharenda-Panasiuk, held incommunicado since January 2024.

We thank the Office for beginning to implement the article 33 resolution action plan by convening the High-Level roundtable on freedom of association in Belarus, which gathered United Nations Special Rapporteurs to provide in-depth perspectives on the situation and encourage further collective action in the ILO and the broader United Nations system. We encourage the Office to identify additional measures to expand and amplify such collective action.

We again urge the Belarusian authorities to fully cooperate under the article 33 resolution, particularly by: permitting an ILO tripartite mission to visit imprisoned trade unionists; cooperating on the appointment of a special representative of the Director-General to supervise all action related to implementing the Commission of Inquiry recommendations; and taking all necessary steps for prompt, effective implementation.

We also encourage all ILO Member States and social partners to continue taking all possible measures in accordance with the resolution adopted under article 33, including ceasing all relations that the Belarusian authorities can leverage against workers and freedom of association, and respecting the principle of non-refoulement for exiled Belarusian activists and trade unionists and their families.

Government member, Pakistan – We welcome the continued cooperation between the ILO and the Government of Belarus in working towards the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations. Dialogue and engagement are essential for addressing concerns and promoting labour rights. We urge all parties to engage in constructive dialogue. The tripartite approach is essential for addressing concerns and enforcing labour rights. There is a need to explore creative solutions to overcome any remaining challenges. We commend and encourage the Government of Belarus to continue its collaboration with the ILO, emphasizing the importance of cooperation, and we hope that the measures taken will be given due consideration.

Observer, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – A year has gone by since the time when the Conference adopted a resolution on Belarus. This was a resolution related to the application of article 33 in relation to Belarus as a result of the infringement of the right to the freedom of association. New facts of violations have been established and they speak for themselves. However, despite the seriousness of the consequences of this evolution, the Belarusian Government is rejecting any constructive proposal that has been put forward by the Governing Body. Instead of cooperation and attempts to resolve the situation, the Belarusian Government, with the help of the FPB that it controls, is trying to convince the whole world that, as a result of the adoption of this resolution, the ILO has introduced economic sanctions against Belarus and they are describing this as political pressure on Belarus. Statements to that effect are simply an attempt to mislead everyone. Yes, sanctions have been introduced against Belarus, but in fact they were introduced for completely different reasons long before the adoption of the ILO resolution. This is an attempt to evade responsibility for the destruction of independent trade unions in Belarus and the imprisonment of dozens of trade union leaders and activists. This behaviour by the Government of Belarus can only lead to further escalation and it is absolutely not in the interests of the workers of Belarus. We hope that the Government will now take concrete steps to resolve this very serious situation. We fully abide by the proposals from the ILO and its Governing Body, including the recommendations that have been made by the Commission of Inquiry, as well as the conclusions of the Director-General. We call for the immediate exclusion of all trade unionists from the list of terrorists and extremists. We also call for urgent access to be given to medical staff to examine Mr Yarashuk, Mr Berasneu, Mr Areshka and Mr Fiadynich, whose health is at risk today. Further we call for more active use to be made of cooperation between the ILO and the United Nations. The shared utilization of special procedures, such as communications, urgent appeals, press releases, site visits by special rapporteurs or moderators from neutral countries, is a first step towards de-escalation. Further, we believe that we need to create a joint working group of the ILO and other United Nations bodies to work under the auspices of article 33 and to develop a clear mechanism for information to be provided by Member States on the measures taken with reference to resolution on Belarus, including annual reports for consideration by the Governing Body in March.

Observer, IndustriALL Global Union (IndustriALL) – It is unfortunate that the situation of human and trade union rights is continuing to deteriorate in Belarus. Just last week, at the ILO tripartite High-Level roundtable on freedom of association in Belarus, the case of Belarus was characterized as being “catastrophic” due to severe violations, as a general wave of unprecedented repression has affected the country. Unfortunately, the Belarusian Government refused to participate in that important event, thus missing the opportunity for constructive dialogue.

I want to draw your attention to the deplorable situation of trade union members and activists who are in jail. Over the last two decades, the Government of Belarus has gradually criminalized trade union work. Now, over the last four years, this level of criminalization has been escalated even further, and as a result independent trade unions, three of them are affiliates of IndustriALL, have been disbanded. Along with this, many union members and activists, including leaders of our affiliates, have been taken to prison on far-fetched and fabricated grounds.

About 40 union leaders and activists remain in jail. Their situation is very precarious. Bad health conditions, psychological pressure and various kinds of mistreatment have been reported. Independent trade union leaders and activists, recognized as political prisoners, must wear special yellow tags on their cloths as a sign to encourage abuse by prison staff. Those who have served their terms and have been released, afterwards remain pariahs in society. They have no right to access their previous jobs.

The Belarusian Government continues to disseminate fear throughout society and is trying to retaliate against every single person allegedly involved in peaceful protests, even if they did not participate in person. Those who have tried to express their solidarity with protesters or alleviate the situation of people in jail or their families and have made financial donations for this purpose are now also subject to reprisals.

We want to remind the Committee that for years we have supported the right of our affiliates in Belarus to receive international solidarity. The ILO Commission of Inquiry made it clear as a recommendation. Not only has this right been denied, but even domestic support is also now considered a crime in Belarus.

The Belarusian authorities are now targeting those who make donations. Solidarity funds are treated as “extremist formations”. It is reported that at least 77 people are known to have been convicted for donations under article 361-2 of the Criminal Code – financing an extremist formation.

We regret to state once again that the situation in Belarus remains catastrophic. Belarus must remain under the very strict scrutiny of the ILO and other United Nations agencies unless we see clear steps by the Government.

And the very first step must be to have access to the trade union activists and leaders who are currently in jail, as well as their urgent and unconditional release with the reinstatement of all civil and political rights. We want to make sure that they are alive and healthy. We expect and demand this immediately. Our access to them must be ensured immediately.

Observer, Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI) – In July 2022, the Supreme Court of Belarus liquidated the BKDP and its affiliates: the BNP, founded in 1991, the Radio Electronic Workers Union (REP Union), founded in 1990, the Free Trade Union of Belarus (SPB) founded in 1991 and, finally, the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers, founded in 1995. At the same time, the Government declared the BKDP and all independent unions “extremist organizations” and terminated their activities after arresting their leaders and activists.

In the period from March to August 2023, the Supreme Court of Belarus rejected three supervisory complaints filed by the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers, the Free Trade Union of Belarus and the BNP in relation to their liquidation by the Supreme Court in July 2022. In the case of the BNP, the Supreme Court considered that there was no violation of the law by the court of first instance. In the case of the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers and the Free Trade Union of Belarus, the Court considered that the representatives of both organizations lacked the authority to file a complaint because, according to national legislation, the liquidation of a legal entity terminates the power of attorney issued by that legal entity. Thus, the forced termination of the trade union’s activities excludes the possibility of the trade union representative appealing against the decision of the court.

These cases of the simultaneous liquidation of trade union organizations, when the Government declared independent trade unions as extremist organizations and thus delegitimatized their activities since their foundation, and the lack of the possibility for trade unions to appeal against such liquidation, results in there being no legal mechanisms for trade unions and their members to protect their fundamental right to freedom of association.

Given the current situation in Belarus, workers are being denied their fundamental right to establish and join the union of their choice, and the absence of legal mechanisms to protect freedom of association is a pressing issue. It is therefore imperative for the ILO to act swiftly, implementing the action plan and developing further action on the resolution concerning the measures recommended by the Governing Body under article 33 of the ILO Constitution on the subject of Belarus.

Observer, International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) – Much has been said here already about the persecution of trade union leaders and participants in trade union action in Belarus. We would like to make special mention of the situation of the relatives and families of repressed trade union members. Having lost their sources of income, many families have found themselves in a difficult financial situation. But they are forbidden from accepting humanitarian aid, even in the form of food packages.

Back in 2001, Belarus introduced an authorization procedure for receiving foreign aid. This ban on international trade union solidarity was one of the first violations of freedom of association. Today these restrictions have been strengthened. Individual recipients of humanitarian aid are prosecuted and punished with fines many times the amount of the humanitarian aid which they receive. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called this practice a violation of a basic human right – the right to food. As a union of food workers, we call upon the Government to immediately lift these restrictions.

For many years Belarus has remained in the focus of ILO attention. For several years in a row, we have heard from the Government that this attention is a manifestation of disrespect to Belarus as a Member State of the ILO. We cannot agree with this. The efforts that the ILO and its Members have made to help normalize the labour rights situation in the country are probably unprecedented.

Unfortunately, over the years, the Government has refused to recognize these efforts and has consistently violated the very basic principles on which our Organization was founded. This demonstration of disrespect culminated in the arrest of a member of the ILO’s Governing Body, Aliaksandr Yaroshuk.

In response to calls to release trade union leaders, we hear figures about tens of thousands of collective bargaining agreements concluded at the enterprise level. But these figures are not impressive. They simply do not matter. As long as there is at least one trade union activist under arrest in the country, everything written in these agreements will remain an empty declaration.

Therefore, once again we call on the Government of the Republic of Belarus to respond to the calls for a review of the application of article 33. To do this, it is necessary to demonstrate in practice its commitment to ILO principles. As a first, obligatory step, release the member of the ILO Governing Body, Aliaksandr Yarashuk, and other trade union activists.

Many concrete proposals have been made here, the implementation of which would allow us to speak of some progress in respecting and fulfilling fundamental workers’ rights in Belarus. We do hope that the Government will take this opportunity to report on concrete steps to the ILO Committee of Experts for consideration already in its next session.

Observer, Public Services International (PSI) – I am afraid that I will also have to repeat a few things that have been said already here, but the situation demands our views. So first I want to state that I adhere to what my previous colleagues and previous speeches have said about the situation in Belarus and address the deeply troubling situation regarding the treatment of trade unionists and other activists in the country. The persecution and unjust imprisonment of trade unionists is a flagrant violation of international labour standards and human rights, and this ongoing repression calls for urgent and assisted action by the ILO and its Member States.

In 2020, our colleagues in the health sector, in various hospitals across the country, wanted to improve their working conditions for their own good and for the good of the patients, after observing the disastrous management of the pandemic by the Government of Belarus. But soon after, these individuals were targeted solely for their legitimate trade union action, facing accusations that lacked any credible basis. Now, they still remain in prison serving time in a penal quarantine or under house arrest.

The severe penalties and inhuman treatment that they are enduring reflect the broader behaviour by the Belarusian authorities to stifle any trade unionism and to suppress any form of association in the country. Such actions, as we all know, are a direct contravention of Convention No. 87.

So, I also call on this Committee to unequivocally denounce these egregious violations. We must send a clear and strong message to the Belarusian Government that the Member States and constituents of the ILO will not tolerate such blatant disregard for fundamental labour rights.

Moreover, the Belarusian Government must take concrete steps to address all the concerns raised by the ILO to ensure full compliance with these obligations under Convention No. 87. This includes ending the harassment and accusation of trade union leaders, guaranteeing their rights to freely associate and organize and enforcing an environment in which labour rights are generally respected.

In conclusion, I hope that this Committee will reaffirm our collective commitment to protecting the rights of workers and trade unions everywhere, and that we stand in solidarity with our colleagues in Belarus and will work tirelessly to ensure that justice prevails and that the principles of the ILO are upheld worldwide.

Government representative – I thank you for the opportunity to speak again to outline the position of the Government of Belarus.

First and foremost, I would like to thank the representatives of countries that have expressed support for Belarus. Your support is very important for us. We see that Belarus is not alone in defending its right to independent development. What you have said gives us the hope that, when assessing the situation in Belarus within the framework of this Committee, an objective and properly thought through approach will be taken.

On the other hand, we categorically disagree with a number of politically biased statements that have been made here by our opponents. Such statements are totally groundless. They are focused on the idea of creating some kind of information arena here, internationally, that can be used to justify the baseless and illegal sanctions that Western countries have applied to the Republic of Belarus. The ILO is just another mechanism that is being used to exert pressure on Belarus. We are fully convinced that the ILO should distance itself as much as possible from any such actions.

Today we have heard assertions that throughout the period when we have had these recommendations from the Commission of Inquiry, the situation in Belarus has only got worse in terms of compliance with ILO Conventions. But that is very far from the truth. I have already said that the supervisory bodies of the ILO have repeatedly commended what has been done by the Government of Belarus. For instance, in 2009, in conclusions adopted by this Committee, it was noted that progress had been made by the Government of Belarus in giving effect to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The direct contacts mission, in Minsk in 2014, commended the work done by the tripartite social partnership bodies in Belarus and noted that there was trade union pluralism in the country. As a result of that, proposals were put forward to organize a whole package of measures focused on further upgrading the work of the tripartite social partnership bodies in the country, developing collective bargaining processes, as well as mechanisms for resolving trade disputes. All of these proposals were successfully put into practice by the Government of Belarus working with the ILO.

In 2015, as a result of the implementation of recommendation No. 2, we introduced changes to our legislation and we removed the requirement for at least 10 per cent of workers in an enterprise for a trade union to be created, and that is a measure that was very much commended by the Committee of Experts at the time. These positive steps resulted in a situation in which, in 2017, Belarus for the first time was not included on the short list of the Committee and consideration of the issue of application of Convention No. 87 in the country simply became part of the regular reporting regime. As a result, for four years, from 2017 to 2021, the question of compliance by Belarus with Convention No. 87 was not considered by this Committee. It is clear that such changes in the approach to the consideration by the ILO of the “Belarusian question” would not have been possible unless serious steps forward had been taken by the Government, and unless those steps had been positively commended by the supervisory bodies. All of this shows the absurdity and groundless nature of the situation that has now arisen with reference to the article 33 action against Belarus.

I would like to emphasize that the serious and systemic work that is being done by Belarus to develop social dialogue and tripartism has not been done so that we can look good in the eyes of the ILO. This is rather part of our domestic policy, it is enshrined in the Constitution of the country and in the Presidential Decree adopted on 15 July 1995, Decree No. 278 on the development of social partnership within the Republic of Belarus. We are convinced that only by working together, the State, employers and workers working together, is it possible to achieve balanced and stable socio-economic development for our country, and to develop our society. I reject all doubts and criticisms as to the legitimacy of our tripartite bodies. Such allegations are entirely baseless. We are also accused of supposedly not giving new information to the Committee, and just repeating our old arguments. But that is not the fault of the Government of Belarus. We have been compelled again and again to explain our position because it has not been appropriately taken into account.

For instance, when it comes to the Government of Belarus, again we have been accused of holding some people responsible supposedly for their trade union activities, participation in peaceful demonstrations and so on. We simply reject that. No one in Belarus is held to account in criminal terms for any lawful activity they undertake. Trade unions in our country have a lot of rights, to participate in establishing socio-economic policy, collective bargaining, and to defend the interests of workers. However, if citizens participate in illegal mass rallies or if they undertake other activities that are against the law, then they must feel the weight of the law. After all, it is one law for everyone. And it is true, that some citizens are indeed serving sentences or being punished, but that is not because of their trade union activities. It is not because of any legitimate or peaceful exercise of civil rights and freedoms. All of those who are being punished have been found criminally responsible, and information on that has been given to the ILO. Attempts by our opponents to say that what has been done is that they have been punished simply for exercising trade union rights are just not true and are just a manipulation of the facts. I have already referred to what has happened in Belarus since 2020, where we have seen the illegal interference of a number of Western countries in the internal affairs of our country. We have seen efforts to support violent demonstrations, extremist activities that threaten the good order of our country. We have seen that all of those involved have been brought to book and are indeed being appropriately punished.

We have therefore seen that people have not been held responsible for trade union activities, but that they have been held responsible for criminal activities, and that being the case, all those who break the law have to be punished. To try to say that that is not what is happening is highly irresponsible. I would emphasize that all of these cases have gone before a court. There has been evidence, there has been proof of what has happened, and indeed it could not be any different in a democratic State based on the rule of law. I have already referred to what happened in 2020 and the role of the BKDP. This Congress was involved in criminal, extremist activity. It was focused on discrediting the country, destabilizing the situation in the country and, despite that, it continued to exist, but it no longer reflects in any way the interests of the workers of our country. And yet, the bodies of the ILO seem to take account of its grievances and complaints. Sadly, on the basis of the false information provided, an argument is created that supports the stepping up of pressure on Belarus. We do not accept that. We categorically reject it. We consider that the ILO, workers and employers need to start genuine dialogue with those who, today, are genuinely upholding tripartism in Belarus. The Government of Belarus and the social partners, that is to say, the FPB and also the confederations of employers and workers, are ready to enter into constructive interaction with the ILO. By giving into the arguments put forward by the opponents of Belarus in recent years, the ILO has ended up taking biased, politicized decisions focused against the interests of Belarus and its people. But the ILO is a very special Organization. It is focused on something quite different. It is always being a champion of dialogue and cooperation. That is one of the underlying principles of this Organization, and the Government of Belarus, for its part, is interested in finding things that can bring us together and continuing an open, constructive dialogue with the ILO in the interests of our society and our State. However, in order for there to be such a dialogue, ILO bodies and its tripartite constituents have to be interested in playing fairly by the rules, recognizing what is really happening today, listening to what is being said by the Government of Belarus, and taking our national interests into account. We will not allow anyone to intervene in our domestic affairs, to undertake a policy that is focused on destabilizing our country and our development, on damaging the welfare and the well-being of our people; we will always reject that and stand up for our own independence and sovereignty. Anti-Belarus decisions by the ILO are simply getting us nowhere, and instead of this approach we need to take a new approach in which we can actually create trust and confidence working together in the interests of the development of social and labour relations in our country. We call on all the tripartite participants and supervisory bodies of the ILO to take just such an approach. We stand ready for honest and equal dialogue.

In conclusion, I would like to note one further point. You have all heard the discussion here this morning. You have all heard what has been said, and I think no one in this room thinks that, on the issue of Belarus, today, there has been any consensus. We have heard a lot of statements in support of Belarus, and of course there have been some who have spoken against us, so it is my view that that is something that has to be reflected in the minutes of this meeting. The position of Belarus has been put forward, but in fact there has been no consensus, and I would certainly call on the ILO and this Committee to refrain from policies intended to exert pressure on Belarus, but rather to seek to cooperate with us in accordance with the fundamental principles of the ILO.

Worker members – We have listened to the interventions and thank everyone for those interventions. And we draw particular attention to the grouped statements by Governments which, in themselves, already represent over 45 governmental expressions of support for the need to address the violation of workers’ rights in the context of the article 33 measures adopted by the Conference last year. And let us not forget the specific individual governmental interventions which also expressed their support. Thus, a lot of governmental support was expressed.

Regrettably, what I have witnessed here today is the same unhelpful approach by the Government of Belarus already taken in previous years.

Contrary to what the Government claims, there is no plot against the Government of Belarus. The Government is the one that has eradicated independent unions in Belarus and imprisoned trade union leaders.

The Government of Belarus has repeated its comments, but they do not correspond to the reality of the lives of workers in Belarus, or indeed that of our Belarus trade union colleagues who are in exile.

It is worth noting that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association recalled, during the high-level roundtable, that full enjoyment of freedom of association was essential to democracy and society as a whole. This freedom is not respected in Belarus. The Special Rapporteur also emphasized that, in view of the centrality of freedom of association, it was therefore essential that trade union activities and work was not stigmatized. Indeed, workers’ rights and freedom of association are human rights. Also, at the same roundtable, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers was clear that the rule of law was necessary to ensure freedom of association in practice. She expressed concern at recent legislation in Belarus which tightened Government authority over the legal profession and the judiciary.

It is obvious to everyone that there has been absolutely no progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and of the supervisory system. We fully endorse the ILO’s action plan to implement article 33 measures with respect to Belarus.

In conclusion, we call on the Government to accept a tripartite mission to assess the situation and to meet imprisoned (and released) unionists. The Government must immediately accept an international humanitarian mission to ensure that independent doctors can visit imprisoned trade unionists, Messrs Yarashuk, Beresneu, Areshka, Fedynich, and so on, to assess their health.

Belarus must implement, in law and practice, the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the recommendations of the supervisory bodies in that regard, as a matter of utmost urgency.

In line with the action plan, we call on the ILO Director-General to ensure that that there is continuous interaction with United Nations human rights’ bodies to implement jointly mechanisms of special procedures, including notes, reports, visits (for example rapporteurs or ambassadors from neutral countries to trigger de-escalation) and also to set up a working group of ILO and other United Nations institutions.

The ILO must also collect information on the measures that Member States have undertaken under the article 33 resolution.

We note that the forced exile of trade unionists for their legitimate trade union activities is a daily reality. We therefore call on ILO Member States to respect the principle of non-refoulement to ensure that trade unionists forced into exile are not returned to Belarus, where they may be subject to arbitrary arrest and torture. They should assist Belarusian citizens residing in their countries who may not have valid travel documents due to their inability to receive consular services.

We call on the ILO Director-General to appoint a special envoy to interact with governments and United Nations agencies to ensure the implementation of the article 33 resolution.

We must conclude by recalling that, according to the article 33 resolution, our Committee is to hold, at our future sessions, a special sitting on Belarus until Belarus fulfils its obligations.

We urge the Government of Belarus to engage constructively with the ILO so that at the next sitting we can see some light at the end of this very dark tunnel of the systematic violation of trade union rights in Belarus.

Employer members – The Employers’ group thanks the various speakers who took the floor for their interventions and the information provided, of which we have taken full note.

We reiterate that ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98 are fundamental Conventions which therefore require special consideration by the ILO, governments, workers and employers. The Employers wish to stress once again that we strongly condemn non-compliance with ratified ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

The Employers recognize signs of the Government’s willingness to cooperate with the ILO on issues concerning the implementation of ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98. We recommend the Government of Belarus to receive as a matter of urgency an ILO tripartite mission with a view to gathering information on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies.

We recommend the Government to engage with the ILO with a view to implementing the recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies and to report to the ILO about the measures taken.

In conclusion, we count on the cooperation of the Government of Belarus in full respect of ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98 in law and practice. The Employers’ group stands ready to constructively support this process.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee held a special sitting on the application by Belarus of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), further to the resolution adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 111th Session, concerning the measures recommended by the Governing Body under article 33 of the ILO Constitution calling on Belarus to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the supervisory bodies.

It noted the oral and written information submitted by the Government, and the discussion which followed.

The Committee noted with deep concern the persistent disregard of the guidance, conclusions and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the supervisory bodies and the Governing Body by the Government of Belarus and refusal to accept and implement them.

The Committee expressed its deep concern and regret at the use of criminal sanctions against trade unionists engaged in legitimate trade union activities and the judicial harassment of trade union members, including arrests, prosecution and imprisonment. It deplored the repression against independent trade unions and the imprisonment of trade unionists and urged the Government to immediately release them, drop any charges and quash any convictions brought against them.

It recalled that this case had been discussed repeatedly in the Committee before the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry, and deeply deplored the lack of progress towards the observance of the Conventions by the Government of Belarus.

The Committee noted the action plan to implement the article 33 measures. It also noted actions taken by the ILO constituents and other international organizations in response to the ILC 2023 resolution on Belarus to review their relations with the Government of Belarus and take appropriate measures to ensure that the Government of Belarus cannot take advantage of such relations to perpetuate or extend the violations of workers’ rights in respect of freedom of association and collective bargaining referred to by the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee called on ILO constituents and other international organizations to continue to do so.

Pursuant to information submitted to the Governing Body and to the Committee, the Committee deeply deplored the climate of state violence, intimidation and fear in Belarus which is not conducive to the free exercise of civil liberties, the continuing deterioration of freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining and the erosion of the rule of law exemplified by the complete lack of independence of the judiciary.

The Committee took note of the March 2024 Governing Body action plan to implement the ILC 2023 resolution and the High-Level Roundtable to discuss freedom of association in Belarus, which took place on 28 May 2024 and evidenced the persistent general climate of non-respect for basic civil liberties necessary to the exercise of freedom of association.

The Committee called on the Government to take all possible measures with the greatest urgency to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and all subsequent observations made by the supervisory bodies of the ILO regarding compliance with the Conventions.

The Committee also requested the Government with the utmost urgency to accept:

• - an international humanitarian mission to ensure that independent doctors can visit all imprisoned trade unionists to assess their health and offer medical assistance, as necessary; and
• - an ILO tripartite mission to assess the situation and visit trade unionists that are currently in prison or detention.

Considering the need of permanent and continuous monitoring of the situation in Belarus, the Committee expected that the ILO Director-General would appoint a special envoy in Belarus shortly and mandate her or him to interact with the Government and relevant UN agencies to ensure the full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

In line with the Conference resolution, the Committee expected that the Director-General would engage with UN Human Rights Bodies and other relevant international bodies with a view to ensuring coordinated and joint action towards the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the supervisory bodies and to explore the possibility of setting up a working group of the ILO and other UN institutions.

The Committee expected that the Office would continue collecting information on measures that Member States have undertaken the Conference resolution and, as requested, include such information in reports to the supervisory bodies and Governing Body of the ILO, including measures to:

• - respect the principle of non-refoulement to ensure that trade unionists forced into exile in their countries are not returned to Belarus where they may be subject to persecution, arbitrary arrest and torture;
• - assist Belarusian citizens residing in their countries who may not have valid travel documents due to their inability to receive consular services, and to facilitate the issuance of tourist visas to Belarusian citizens persecuted for their trade union activities and their relatives, as appropriate.

The Committee expected that the special envoy would systematically and regularly report to the Governing Body which will assess what further steps are necessary to be taken by the Government or by the ILO and its Member States. The Committee further recalled that the Government should provide a detailed report to the Committee of Experts before its next session on all measures taken to implement these recommendations in order to ensure observance of the Conventions in law and in practice.

Finally, the Committee decided to include the discussions and conclusions of the special sitting in a separate part of its report.

Chairperson – I see the delegate of Belarus. Ambassador, you have the floor.

Government representative – As far as I understand, and all members of the Committee understand also, the work of the Committee on the Application of Standards is regulated by Part 4 of the Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference. According to article 35 of Part 4 of the Standing Orders, provisions of this part of the Standing Orders shall apply to all committees appointed by the Conference, except as otherwise provided. Article 42 of the Standing Orders in particular provides, I quote, “the Committee shall make every effort to take its decision by consensus, which is characterized by the absence of any objection presented by a member, as an impediment to the adoption of the decision in question”. The lack of consensus is as defined, is an objection by a member of the Committee. In case of objection by more than one member of the Committee, consensus could not be declared. The discussion during the CAS special sitting on Belarus, which took place on 5 June, clearly demonstrated the lack of consensus both in assessment of the policy of the Government of Belarus, as the situation in the labour and social sphere in my country, as well as the lack of consensus on the measures to be recommended by the CAS to Belarus.

About half of the statements call on the ILO and the Committee to avoid politicization in interaction with Belarus, which could then become a dangerous precedent and a negative trend within the organization. Some members of the Committee also opposed imposition of politically motivated demands to the Government of Belarus and expressed concern that such measures could have negative impact on the interests of Belarussian workers and employers.

The conclusions on Belarus submitted for adoption today, do not adequately reflect these aspects and misleads the International Labour Conference. This document, provisions of which are formulated in line with the position only of a part of the Committee, could not be presented as a consensus of all the members of the CAS.

As there is an obvious lack of consensus, my delegation asks for the rules of procedure to be strictly followed and request to put to a vote the conclusions of the CAS special sitting on Belarus. I also urge members of the CAS to vote against the non-consensual conclusion.

Chairperson – Before giving the floor to the other delegations who expressed their will to do so, I would like to refer to the ILC Standing Order, article 42 – which has been mentioned by Madam Ambassador – which states that it is my duty as President, and the Chair of this Committee, to make every effort for the Committee decision to be taken by consensus. The consensus does not mean unanimity. As indicated in the ILC Standing Orders it is characterized by the absence of any objections presented by the delegate as the impediment to the adoption of the decision and the questions.

Having said that, I wish to recall that since the Committee has been adopting conclusions on the country cases it has always – with no exception – adopted its conclusion by consensus, with divergent views systematically fully reflected in its report.

In the light of the prevailing view expressed during the Committee’s discussion and also on the understanding that the Government’s position will be fully reflected in the report, may I take it that the Committee is ready to adopt the conclusions displayed on the screen?

I give the floor to the distinguished Ambassador of Belarus.

Government representative – As far as I understand, the conclusion itself is not consensual because in the conclusion itself, there is no reflection of the position and the different approach of, not only my delegation, not only Government, not only workers and employers from Belarus, but of a number of delegations, a number of members of the CAS. During the consideration of the case, some delegates requested the voting on the decision.

Chairperson – Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Interpretation from Russian: Government member, Russian Federation – The Russian Federation fully supports the assessment which has just been expressed by the representative of the Republic of Belarus about the conclusions of the special session. The Russian Federation does not support these conclusions, does not join a consensus on these conclusions and therefore supports the request of the Republic of Belarus that this document be submitted to a vote.

Chairperson – I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Interpretation from Arabic: Government member, Syrian Arab Republic – The Syrian delegation would like to welcome what Belarus has said, we commend Belarus for submitting all the information to the Committee. We support the request made by Belarus to have a vote on the conclusions.

Chairperson – I give the floor to the distinguished representative of China.

Interpretation from Chinese: Government member, China – One week ago, we attended the discussion of this Committee on the case of Belarus, and apparently after the discussion, no consensus has been reached. According to our understanding, many tripartite constituents do not agree to today’s draft conclusions, and we fully support the Government representative of Belarus, and we support the motion to vote.

Chairperson – I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Nicaragua.

Government member, Nicaragua – Nicaragua aligns itself with the statement made by the distinguished delegation of Belarus and supports the request to put the conclusions to a vote. We also reiterate and urge that this case not be politicized.

Chairperson – Any other request for the floor? I give the floor to Eritrea.

Government member, Eritrea – As we have discussed on 5 June, Belarus has made a lot of effort in improving the situation by having many organized trade unions and, in the meantime, having more than 10,000 collective agreements. This positive engagement is very good as has been said. So, if that is the case then I think the CAS has to give another chance to Belarus, and if that does not work – then I think – we support the Belarusian representative to proceed with voting today.

Chairperson – I give the floor to the representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia.

Government member, Plurinational State of Bolivia – On behalf of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, we support the motion of the representative of Belarus to put the Committee’s conclusions to a vote.

Chairperson – Having heard the previous statements, I would like to take a three minute break to allow Vice-Chairpersons to consult. I kindly request and call the Vice-Chairpersons to come to the podium.

Chairperson – After the consultations with the two Vice-Chairpersons I would like to stress that the view of the distinguished Government representatives are well noted, but I wish to recall that consensus is different from unanimity and therefore the Committee should be able to proceed on the basis of a clear and strong majority.

With this explanation may I therefore take it that the Committee would be ready to adopt the conclusions on the case of Belarus?

I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Interpretation from Russian: Government member, Russian Federation – The provisions which govern the taking of decisions in the Committee were set forth in detail by the representative of the Republic of Belarus and they make it quite clear that a voting procedure can be held if there is no consensus and that means disagreement of one State or more, and if the request for a vote is made and then supported by at least one other delegation. Chairperson, what you are suggesting, that is consensus without consensus or consensus by a majority has been tried before I think in the Governing Body. We do not think this is a procedure which should be followed here or spread in this Organization. We think we should follow the rules for the adoption of decisions in the Committee which we have always had. We do not think we should proceed in any other way, and we will take the same attitude to any attempt to take a decision anywhere in the way you have just outlined.

Chairperson – Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of China.

Interpretation from Chinese: Government member, China – First of all, voting in this Committee is in line with the Standing Orders of the Conference. Second, it is very obvious that through the discussion and consultation last week and also today on this case, no consensus at all forms has been reached. Third, we have already read the draft conclusions and it has not shown any achievements made by the Government of Belarus. They are very biased and they have been politicized. We reiterate our support for the motion to a vote.

Chairperson – Now I give the floor to the representative of the United Kingdom.

Government member, United Kingdom – Taking into consideration the discussion and the fact that this would be the first time, as you rightly pointed out, that the Committee’s conclusions will be voted on in its 100-year history, the United Kingdom agrees with the esteemed Chairperson and Vice-Chairpersons that consensus has been reached and a vote is not necessary on these conclusions.

Chairperson – I give the floor to the representative of Belarus.

Interpretation from Russian: Government representative – The discussion of whether we should vote or not vote has shown that there is no consensus on the case of Belarus. I would like to say to the United Kingdom delegation one thing, look carefully at the history of the ILO, there have been votes in this Committee before, so it is not the first time, it is not about the circumstances being unique. Votes are not prohibited here; they are covered in the Standing Orders of the ILO and of the Committee. This may be something which is unusual, but it needs to be done.

Chairperson – I give the floor to the representative of Saudi Arabia. The floor is yours.

Interpretation from Arabic: Government member, Saudi Arabia – My delegation took note of the content of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. We do appreciate the efforts deployed by Belarus in achieving the full implementation of the Committees’ recommendation. We do also appreciate the information provided by the delegation of Belarus. We do appreciate as well, the engagement of Belarus with the ILO in sanctioning social dialogue with partners. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would like to reaffirm that everything that is related to improving the working conditions shall be addressed within the spirit of a constructive dialogue with all stakeholders and actors. At the end we would like to encourage Belarus to continue working on achieving the full compliance with the Conventions that it has ratified, and we ask the ILO to continue providing technical assistance to Belarus in that matter.

Chairperson – Despite protracted attempts of myself and the two Vice-Chairpersons to seek convergence or flexibility, I note with disappointment that no consensus has been reached through tripartite dialogue. Subsequently I decide, in agreement with the two Vice-Chairpersons, to proceed with a vote by show of hands. In view of the preparation of this vote, I propose a ten-minute technical break.

I give the floor to the United States.

Government member, United States – We appreciate the Chairperson’s efforts to continue to seek consensus and we would just like to raise a question here to those delegates that have put forward the request for a vote. We have heard one delegate say that a voting procedure can be held but we would like to ask, should it be held? We have heard one delegate say that this needs to be done, but we would like to question whether it really needs to be done. Instead, we would respectfully ask those delegates calling for a vote to reconsider their call for a vote in favour of respect for the well-established working methods of this Committee.

Chairperson – I give the floor to Belgium.

Government member, Belgium – I speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. We attach great importance to the decision being taken by consensus, the long-established practice of the Committee. Therefore, we share the concern of the United Kingdom and the United States about the necessity of a vote to be called for, as only a minority of members of the Committee had called for the vote. We also appreciate all efforts made by the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairpersons in order to reach a consensus.

Chairperson – I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Australia.

Government member, Australia – The normative and supervisory role of the ILO is at the core of its mandate. The international labour standards that we, as Member States, choose to ratify are backed by a supervisory system that is unique at the international level. The supervisory system is in the DNA of the ILO. Australia strongly encourages Belarus to accept the Committee’s conclusions. To move to a vote would be a regrettable modern precedent and break with the established practice to make every effort for the Committee to make its decisions by consensus. We encourage all Member States to respect the findings of the Committee and not take any action to jeopardize its independence and critical role.

Chairperson – Are there any other delegations wishing to take the floor? I give the floor to the distinguished Ambassador of Belarus.

Interpretation from Russian: Government representative – I am grateful to you for your efforts and for the consultations which you have held in what is a very difficult situation. We have heard the appeals not to put this question to a vote but we feel that the Committee should follow the Standing Orders and the rules of procedure. The lack of a consensus on this matter is only too clear and, therefore, we would like to confirm our request, which has been backed up by several other delegations, to put this question to a vote.

Chairperson – After the break we will continue with the voting procedure. So the meeting is adjourned.

Chairperson – As I announced before the break, now we continue to proceed with the vote by show of hands.

(vote by show of hands)

Chairperson – I will announce the results of the vote on adoption of the conclusions for Belarus. The votes cast were as follows:

For: 1,272 votes

Against: 52 votes

Abstentions: 64 votes

The required quorum having been attained, the conclusions are adopted.

These results have been established after verification of the voting rights in the Workers’ group.

In the light of these results the conclusions are adopted.

Chairperson – We have now completed the adoption of all the conclusions of the individual cases discussed by our Committee. I give the floor to the representative of Belarus.

Interpretation from Russian: Government representative – The decision on the conclusions has been taken. However, the conclusions reflect inaccurately and in a distorted manner the assessment and interpretation of the position of the Government. The Government and our employers and workers have several times said that we were ready to cooperate with the ILO on a non-politicized basis. Unfortunately, that has been ignored. Instead of a non-politicized dialogue, what we see is demands being made of our Government which are tantamount to political ultimatums. The Government of Belarus will not accept that. The question of the appointment by the Director-General of a Special Envoy to Belarus reflects attempts by a group of Western countries to set a precedent within the ILO of a special country procedure and to use it as another way of exerting pressure against my country. Today’s conclusions are a precedent for dealing with awkward or un-submissive governments. The conclusions are also continuing the attempt to drag Member States and international organizations into a politically biased campaign of western sanctions against Belarus. The conclusions have distorted the assessment of the action of my Government and are inaccurate as to the alleged repression against trade union activity; they ask our country to change its legislation on a politicized basis. The issue of making it easier to give visas to those who have broken Belarusian law is a cynical attempt to overlook the fact that it is at the initiative of Western countries that flights from and to Belarus were grounded, making it impossible to get visas to Belarusian citizens or for western citizens to travel to Belarus. This is a cynical attempt to apply double standards. We do not support these conclusions. We believe there is politically biased manipulation of the ILO. We, therefore, urge others to reject the conclusions as well. To conclude, the Belarusian authorities and the tripartite delegation of Belarus will nevertheless be happy to cooperate with the ILO on a non-politicized basis.

Chairperson – Distinguished representative of Workers, Vice-Chairperson you have the floor.

Worker members – The Worker members deeply regret that the conclusions for this case have been adopted by a vote. This goes against the working methods and the practices followed by our Committee for several decades. This vote does not add any value.

I recall that our Committee does not have the binding means to force a government to accept the conclusions adopted. Our work is based on dialogue and persuasion. I invite all governments to respond to the conclusions of our Committee in an open and constructive spirit.

Chairperson – I give the floor to the delegation of Kazakhstan. Ambassador, you have the floor.

Government member, Kazakhstan – We regret to see that the Committee has not reached consensus and dialogue, communication and cooperation should remain the main principle of the Committee’s work. The Government of Belarus has demonstrated openness to cooperate with social partners and with the ILO on the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee. However, we note that despite engagement attempts by the ILO supervisory bodies there are still outstanding issues identified by the Committee. We encourage the Government of Belarus to take the appropriate and necessary measures to ensure compliance with its obligations under the ILO Conventions and to continue to cooperate with the ILO supervisory bodies.

Chairperson – Are there any other requests to take the floor? The United States, you have the floor.

Government member, United States– I am speaking on behalf of the Governments of the United States and Canada. We deplore that a vote was called today. This vote is unprecedented. Never before in the almost one-hundred-year history of the Committee, has a vote been taken on the adoption of conclusions. This vote was unnecessary, the conclusions were proposed jointly, by the Workers’ and Employers’ groups, who together represent two thirds of the voting weight of this Committee. The United States and Canada hold the work on the Committee on the Application of Standards in the highest regard, as do so many of us assembled today. It is a critical element of one of the oldest and most well-respected supervisory systems in the world. It is a unique feature in the multilateral system, providing a platform for governments, workers, and employers to share perspectives and guidance on how Member States might improve their efforts to comply with their obligations under international labour Conventions they have ratified. We condemn, in the strongest terms, this disruption to the well-established working methods of this Committee, in furtherance of nothing more than an individual agenda, unrelated to enhancing implementation of international labour standards or protecting the rights of workers. We call on those Government delegates who insisted on this vote, to reconsider their careless resort to voting here and across the Organization. We implore our colleagues to respect our working methods and reconsider making use of well-established practice to make their views known for the record. We wish to emphasize that the vote today is an aberration, not a precedent and we call on all constituents of the ILO to respect the strong social dialogue that takes place in this Committee.

Chairperson – I now give the floor to the representative of the United Kingdom.

Government member, United Kingdom – The United Kingdom, like many of us in this room, is deeply dismayed that a vote has been called here today. We have discussed the situation vis-à-vis workers’ rights, especially as regards Conventions Nos 87 and 98, in Belarus extensively, at several sessions of the Governing Body, at the International Labour Conference and also during the high-level round table this year. Reams of information have been provided by independent experts that has allowed us to analyse this case in great depth and in good faith. Article 33 sanctions were invoked last year, for only the second time in ILO history. Again, after a great deal of considered discussion, the esteemed Worker and Employer spokespersons have drafted these conclusions without involvement from Government. In the spirit of consensus and in respect of the ILO supervisory system and its working methods, we should have adopted these conclusions as drafted without a vote. At future sessions of the Committee, the United Kingdom strongly urges all members to adopt the conclusions, as drafted by the spokespersons, by consensus to allow the effective functioning of the ILO supervisory system which correlates directly to the fulfilment of the ILO’s mandate of promoting social justice and internationally recognized human and labour rights.

Chairperson – Now I give the floor to distinguished representative of Australia. The floor is yours.

Government member, Australia – Australia deeply regrets that we were forced into a vote today in the Committee and the disruption to the well-established working methods of this Committee. Today’s unfortunate action should not be seen as a precedent. As I said earlier, the normative and supervisory role of the ILO is at the core of its mandate and we encourage all Member States to respect its findings.

Chairperson – Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belgium.

Government member, Belgium – I am speaking on behalf of the European Union and its 27 Member States. The Committee is a crucial pillar of the ILO supervisory system and embodies the core values of the ILO based on social dialogue and tripartism. It enables all constituents to discuss the implementation of ILO Conventions in a constructive, respectful, and tripartite manner. We very much regret that not all decisions could be adopted by consensus this year, thus going against the long-established practice of our Committee. Nevertheless, we are pleased to have reached concrete conclusions which will provide guidance on the way forward to effectively implement international labour standards in law and practice. We are looking forward to a constructive engagement with the ILO Office and the tripartite constituents in the follow-up of the conclusions of the Committee.

Annex

Director-General’s report on the latest development regarding the situation of freedom of association in Belarus and compliance with the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine the observance by the Government of Belarus of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98)

Introduction

At its 350th Session (March 2024), the Governing Body took note with growing concern of the information provided in document GB.350/INS/10(Rev.1); urged the Government of Belarus to submit to the Director-General all information on the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry by 15 April 2024 for transmission to the Committee on the Application of Standards; and requested the Director-General to prepare an updated report to inform the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 112th Session (2024) of the Conference of the latest developments. The Governing Body also once again urged the Government of Belarus to receive as a matter of urgency an ILO tripartite mission with a view to gather information on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and subsequent recommendations of the supervisory bodies of the ILO, including a visit to the independent trade union leaders and activists in prison or detention. The Governing Body took note of the action plan to implement the resolution concerning the measures recommended by the Governing Body under article 33 of the ILO Constitution on the subject of Belarus. Pursuant to the action plan, the ILO was to convene a High-Level Roundtable to discuss Freedom of Association in Belarus. At the same session and after the adoption of its above-mentioned decision, the Governing Body adopted the 406th report of the Committee on Freedom of Association (Endnote 1) which also examined measures taken by the Government of Belarus to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. On that occasion, the Committee deplored the continuing deterioration of freedom of association in the country, the total lack of progress in implementing the recommendations of the 2004 Commission of Inquiry and the failure of the Government to address the outstanding recommendations of the ILO supervisory bodies and the conclusions of the Governing Body.

Information provided by the Government

By a communication dated 9 April 2024, the Government transmitted information on the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry which has been made available in full on the Committee on the Application of Standards website.(Endnote 2) The Government once again reiterated that recommendations 1–8, 11 and 12 have been implemented, while recommendations 9 and 10 do not fully meet national security interests. The Government further reiterated that it was ready to cooperate with the International Labour Office on issues concerning the implementation of Conventions Nos 87 and 98, provided that account is taken of present day realities and national interests, at the forefront of which are the stable socio-economic development of the Republic, the well-being and high quality of life of the Belarusian people, social harmony, the unshakeable foundations of democracy and the rule of law, and the country’s independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Information provided by the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (BKDP)

By a communication dated 17 May 2024, the BKDP provided information on the implementation by the Government of Belarus of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry (Endnote 3). According to the BKDP, it is currently impossible for independent trade unions and their members to carry out their activities legally; anyone who associates with independent trade unions and carries out trade union and human rights activities is subject to criminal liability under the following provisions of the Criminal Code: section 193–1 on “unlawful organization of the activities of a public association, religious organization or foundation or participation in their activities”, punishable by a fine and/or restriction of freedom or imprisonment for up to two years; section 361–1 on “establishment of or participation in an extremist group” punishable by a fine and/or restriction of freedom or imprisonment for up to six years; and section 361-4 on “facilitating extremist activities”, punishable by a fine and/or restriction of freedom or imprisonment for up to seven years.(Endnote 4) 

The BKDP informed of a judicial decision of 28 March 2024 by which all information materials and paraphernalia of Salidarnast (an organization founded by Belarusian trade union leaders and activists who were forced to leave the country after the liquidation and repression of democratic trade unions in 2022) were declared extremist and included in the Republican List of Extremist Materials. Salidarnast provides humanitarian, informational and legal support to trade union members and labour movement activists. The legal consequences of declaring all information materials and paraphernalia of Salidarnast as extremist is their ban in the territory of Belarus. The distribution, production, storage or transportation of these materials, as well as interaction with the organization which produces them, including subscribing to its social networks, is punishable, under section 19.11 of the Code on administrative offences, by a maximum penalty of administrative arrest of up to 30 days. The BKDP also referred to a number of administrative detentions and arrests of trade unionists.

The BKDP indicated that as of 7 May 2024, more than 50 trade unionists were under criminal persecution and provided a list of 39 trade unionists currently imprisoned, as well as a list of 21 trade unionists who were released but not exonerated and on whom additional restrictions were placed pursuant to the legislation in force (prohibition from leaving the city/country without police permission, an obligation to report to a police station on a weekly basis, ban on certain professional activities, control and surveillance of bank accounts, etc.). The BKDP also informed that in January 2024, Mr Aliaksandr Yeudakimchyk, leader of the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers (SPM), died after a long illness and alleged in this respect that persecution for carrying out trade union activities and numerous administrative arrests had an extremely negative impact on Mr Yeudakimchyk’s health.

The BKDP further indicated that since its last communication the following new criminal cases were opened, and new sentences rendered. On 4 March 2024, a new criminal case was opened against Mr Leanid Soudalenko, labour lawyer and activist of the Belarusian Union of Radio and Electronic Workers (REP Union), under section 361-4 of the Criminal Code. Fearing persecution, he was forced to flee Belarus and thus cannot exercise his right to defence. Ms Volha Brytsikava, leader of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BNP), charged with “inciting racial, national, religious or other social hatred or discord” under section 130(1) of the Criminal Code was sentenced to three years of imprisonment on 5 April 2024, after a trial behind closed doors. In addition, a new criminal case has been opened against her under section 361(1) of the Criminal Code entitled “calls for restrictive measures (sanctions) and other actions aimed at harming the national security of the Republic of Belarus”, which carries a maximum penalty of six years of imprisonment and a fine. The BKDP further described disciplinary sanctions and ill-treatment of several imprisoned trade union leaders by the administration of penal colonies; these included placement in isolation cell, removal of the right to receive visits, phone calls and parcels and not allowing meetings with lawyers.

The BKDP also referred to the case of Ms Palina Sharenda-Panasiuk, an activist of the Belarusian Union of Radio and Electronic Workers (REP Union).(Endnote 5) It indicated in this respect that since January 2024, there had been no contact with the activist and that during this period, a lawyer was refused access to her on three occasions. On 19 March 2024, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) requested the Government of Belarus to urgently take temporary measures to protect Ms Sharenda-Panasiuk. On 22 March 2024, State media (Belarus 1) broadcast a video featuring the activist, and in which the CEDAW request was mentioned; she did not look well and there was a yellow tag on her uniform, which identifies labour movement activists and political prisoners.

According to publicly available information after having fully served her sentence, Ms Sharenda-Panasiuk was due to be released on 21 May 2024. Instead, she was transferred to a detention centre and a new (third) criminal case was opened against her. She was charged for the second time under section 411(2) of the Criminal Code entitled “malicious disobedience to the demands of administration of the correctional institution” (previously her sentence was extended by one year under the same provision of the Code).

High-Level Roundtable

The High-level roundtable to discuss freedom of association in Belarus took place on 28 May 2024, as part of the action plan adopted in March 2024 by the Governing Body to implement the ILO Conference Resolution. By a communication dated 23 May 2024, the Government indicated that it would not participate in the event.

Three UN Special Rapporteurs participated in the roundtable – Ms Anaïs Marin, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus; Ms Gina Romero, Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association; and Ms Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on independence of judges and lawyers.

Ms Marin indicated that while the situation of human rights was never satisfactory, following presidential elections in August 2020, it became catastrophic, with violations of freedom of association being a massive part of a general wave of repression. She pointed out that while peaceful demonstrations of August 2020 were accompanied by arbitrary arrests of thousands of protesters, their detention and disappearances, the crackdown on independent trade unions began two years later, in 2022, with the liquidation of the BKDP and arrests and imprisonment of its leaders and activists despite their offers for dialogue. Enterprises that did not have any unions were instructed by the Government to create them, undermining any semblance of independence. In these circumstances, the remaining organizations and trade unions, as well as any newly created ones, were under State control and lacked independence from the Government. Ms Marin also referred to the situation of those who were forced into exile and called on ILO Member States to respect the principle of non-refoulement as most would be subject to arbitrary arrest and torture if returned to Belarus. She described the conditions of detention of trade unionists, who, together with political prisoners were forced to wear yellow labels. She had collected testimony that the identification of these prisoners in this way resulted in their being harassed and intimidated, put in overcrowded cells, denied timely medical treatment, placed in isolations for long periods, denied the right to communicate with family and lawyers, and were subjected to forced labour. Some activists were pushed to ask for pardon and to beg for clemency, yet, contrary to implied promises, were not released. Being identified as political prisoners meant that these imprisoned trade unionists were not able to qualify for a pardon. Their relatives experienced threats. Ms Marin called on ILO Member States to facilitate the issuance of tourist visas to Belarusian citizens persecuted for their trade union activities and their relatives. Another issue that needed to be addressed was how Belarusians could continue to reside abroad with an expired passport following the discontinuation of consular services to renew and obtain passports.(Endnote 6) Going back to Belarus to obtain a new passport or renew an old one put them at risk of arrest.

Ms Romero recalled that full enjoyment of freedom of association was essential to democracy and the society as a whole and that it was therefore essential that trade union activities and work should not be stigmatized. In this regard, she emphasized that workers’ rights and freedom of association are human rights and there was therefore a collective responsibility to ensure an end to the violation of these rights. She called on ILO Member States to provide humanitarian assistance to the persons forced into exile and their relatives.

Ms Satterthwaite recalled that independence of judges and the judiciary was at the core of the rule of law and necessary to ensure freedom of association in practice. She expressed concern about instances where lawyers were disbarred for defending human rights and trade union activists as this clearly undermined the ability of those accused to have meaningful representation in the cases brought against them. Noting recent legislation in the country which tightened government authority over the legal profession, she observed that the situation on the ground had given rise to a disturbing context of political interference with the administration of justice, the absence of an independent bar association, systemic violations of the right to a fair trial, and the use of criminal law to punish trade unionists for the exercise of basic rights and to dissolve independent trade unions.

Other participants expressed regret that the Government representatives did not participate in the event and has, so far, dismissed the pathways offered by the Governing Body. It was unfortunate that the Government politicized the issue to shirk its responsibility and claimed that the adoption of the resolution by the International Labour Conference was aimed at promoting sanctions against it. It was observed by some that no sanctions have so far been imposed pursuant to article 33 of the ILO Constitution in addition to those that were already in place prior to the adoption to the resolution.

It was observed that this event had importantly brought together several of the pieces of the international system and demonstrated the interconnectedness of their work. This should provide impetus for further reinforcement and collaboration to achieve their respective mandates. Referring to the various conclusions across the United Nations system, including the recommendations of the Universal Period Review, it was observed that there was a general international consensus that widespread violations of workers’ rights occurred in Belarus. Declaring trade union activities and publications extremist, rendering any person associated with independent trade unions, including by consulting their social media accounts, a target for persecution made it impossible to exercise one’s freedom of association rights. Governments had expressed interest in reflecting on how better they can coordinate their actions to give effect to the article 33 resolution.

While the trade union movement affirmed that it had never politicised this matter and rather favoured a constructive approach to get beyond this impasse, this could only occur if the Government cooperated with the ILO and took steps to ensure that trade unionists were not treated as criminals. All steps need to be taken to ensure their immediate release. Independent trade unions should be given space so that real tripartite discussions can be resumed in the country.

Appendix

Communication of the BKDP

Additional Information of the Trade Union Association “Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions” (TUA BKDP) on Implementation by the Government of the Republic of Belarus the Recommendations of the ILO Commission of Inquiry

In the period from February 2024 Belarus systematically has continued to fail to take measures to address the Recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry appointed under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO and recommendation provided annually by the Committee on Freedom of Association. Violations have not only not been addressed, but have worsened with the existence of the State campaign of persecution of leaders and activists of workers’ movement following the 2020 presidential election.

Currently, it is impossible for independent trade unions and their members to carry out their activities in the Republic of Belarus legally. Anyone who associates himself or herself with independent trade unions and carries out human rights, activist and other activities for the realisation of trade unions' goals is subject to criminal liability inter alia under articles 193–1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus (hereinafter – the CC) “Unlawful organisation of the activities of a public association, religious organisation or foundation or participation in their activities” in form of the penalty, or restriction of freedom, or imprisonment for the term up to two years; 361–1 “Establishment of or participation in an extremist group” in the form of the penalty, or restriction of freedom, or imprisonment up to six years; 361–4 “Facilitating extremist activities” in the form of the penalty, or restriction of freedom, or imprisonment up to seven years. The information about the persecution of some members and activists of independent trade unions and working movement was not intentionally included in the Information due to the unreasonable risk of increased persecution, including a threat to life and health. Therefore, there is a deliberately limited by the Government opportunity of TUA BKDP to provide information to the ILO as well as inaccuracies in the information provided.

State-run repressions against leaders and activists of workers’ movement as well as against independent trade unions have continued by the following:

1.  As of 7 May 2024 more than 50 trade union and labour leaders and activists are under criminal persecution.

There are two categories of persecuted persons: who are imprisoned (in the form of imprisonment [“лишение свободы”] and restriction of freedom [“ограничение свободы”] and who are released but non-rehabilitated. The identification of the second category is due to the fact that serving a sentence does not mean the absence of restrictions on the rights of the convicted person.

The factual ground for criminal persecution (regardless of the crime charged) of workers’ organizations’ activists and leaders is their workers’ organizations’ activities and enjoyment of the freedom of association, freedom of expression, and freedom of peaceful assembly protected by the ILO Conventions and the International Bill of Rights.

The fact of the release does not negate the fact of previous illegal prosecution and violation of the above rights by the Government. Moreover, Belarusian national law provides for a system of restrictions on the rights of those who have served their sentences, which is adapted in its most severe form specifically to those crimes that the workers’ organizations’ activists and leaders are charged with. All persons released on so-called extremist or terrorist charges while serving a sentence (two years per crime for a less serious crime and five years per crime for a serious crime) are subject to additional restrictions according to Belarusian national law under “preventive observation” procedure and inclusion in extremists and terrorists lists, inter alia:

(1) They are prohibited from leaving the country and even the city without police permission.

(2) They are checked at their place of residence under a video recorder with their signature on the papers several times a day and even at night.

(3) They have to appear at the police station once a week for preventive measures.

(4) The actual ban on specific kinds of professional activities applies to them, including public service positions, educational activities, etc. (until the criminal record is expunged (on average 2–5 years after serving the sentence (depending on the crime incriminated)) or removed and for 5 years after it).

(5) Ban on organizing mass events (until the criminal record is expunged (on average 2–5 years after serving the sentence (depending on the crime incriminated)).

(6) Their money accounts are controlled by special services up to the freezing of accounts.

The Government in administrative order (by the decision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Belarus and the State Security Committee of the Republic of Belarus (KGB)) has approved lists of extremists and terrorists that include all those released. The basis for inclusion in the extremis and terrorist lists is an enforceable sentence (to which workers’ association activists and leaders are specifically sentenced). The procedure for release from these lists has not yet been determined by the government. Therefore, the Government imposes additional penalties on all persons released in a discretionary and extrajudicial manner thereby limiting their rights in contradiction to imperative international standards.

List of trade union and labour leaders and activists imprisoned (imprisonment and restriction of freedom):

(1) Aliaksandr Mishuk (BNP Vice-chair, chair at OJSC “Belaruskali”);

(2) Aliaksandr Yarashuk (BKDP, chairperson);

(3) Hennadz Fiadynich (REP, vice-chairperson);

(4) Vatslau Areshka (REP, union newspaper editor);

(5) Vasil Berasneu (REP, acting chairperson);

(6) Artsiom Zharnak (SPM, chairperson at OJSC “Minsk Automobile Plant” – the management company of the holding “BELAVTOMAZ” (MAZ));

(7) Vital Chychmarou (SPM, chair at OJSC “Minsk Electrotechnical Plant Named After Vi Kozlov” (METZ));

(8) Aliaksandr Mialeshka (SPB, member of branch union council);

(9) Andrei Khanevich (BNP, chairperson at OJSC “Grodno Azot”);

(10) Uladzimir Berdnikovich (BNP, UCC “Remmontazhstroy”);

(11) Uladzimir Zhurauka (Rabochy Rukh, BNP, OJSC “Grodno Azot”)

(12) Andrei Paheryla (Rabochy Rukh, BNP, OJSC “Grodno Azot”);

(13) Siarhei Shelest (Rabochy Rukh, BNP, OJSC “Grodno Azot”);

(14) Valiantsin Tseranevich (Rabochy Rukh, BNP, OJSC “Grodno Azot”);

(15) Aliaksandr Kapshul (Rabochy Rukh, BNP, OJSC “Naftan”);

(16) Aliaksandr Hashnikau (Rabochy Rukh, BNP, OJSC “Belarusian Steel Works” (BMZ));

(17) Ihar Mints (Rabochy Rukh, OJSC “Naftan”);

(18) Hanna Ablab (Rabochy Rukh, Belarusian Railway);

(19) Siarhei Dziuba (Rabochy Rukh, Belarusian Railway);

(20) Siarhei Shametska (Rabochy Rukh, СJSC “ATLANT”);

(21) Aliaksei Aliakseichyk (SPB, Republican Center for Children Oncology);

(22) Aliaksandr Kandratsiuk (SPB, National Science Academy);

(23) Maksim Senik (BNP secretary-treasurer at OJSC “Grodno Azot”);

(24) Dzianis Puchek (SPM, OJSC “Minsk Tractor Plant” (MTZ));

(25) Aleh Kasila (BNP, OJSC “Krasnoselskstroimaterialy”);

(26) Andrei Shulhat (SPM, OJSC “Minsk Tractor Plant” (MTZ));

(27) Yauhen Batura (SPM, OJSC “Minsk Tractor Plant” (MTZ));

(28) Aliaksei Zabiran (BNP, OJSC “Grodno Azot”);

(29) Volha Barushka (SPB activist, Minsk Scientific and Practical Center);

(30) Hanna Karneyenka (SPM, OJSC “Minsk Electrotechnical Plant Named After Vi Kozlov” (METZ));

(31) Halina Smirnova (REP, Babrujsk, regional union coordinator);

(32) Dzmitry Varanovich (SPM, OJSC "BELAZ" – Management Company of Holding "BELAZ- HOLDING");

(33) Sviatlana Sakovich (SPM, OJSC “Minsk Tractor Plant” (MTZ));

(34) Palina Sharenda-Panasiuk (REP);

(35) Volha Brytsikava (BNP, chairperson, OJSC “Naftan”);

(36) Artsiom Parkhamovich (REP, activist, RUP “Beltelekom”);

(37) Alena Nazarava (REP, OJSC “Minsk Tractor Plant” (MTZ));

(38) Aliaksandr Murauyou (REP);

(39) Vital Halitski (SPM, OJSC “Minsk Electrotechnical Plant Named After Vi Kozlov” (METZ)).

List of trade union and labour leaders and activists released, but non-rehabilitated:

(1) Siarhei Antusevich (BKDP, vice-chairperson);

(2) Iryna But-Husaim (BKDP, accountant);

(3) Yanina Malash (SPM, vice-chairperson);

(4) Zinaida Mikhniuk (REP, vice-chairperson);

(5) Yauhen Hovar (BNP, OJSC “Belarusian Steel Works” (BMZ));

(6) Mikhail Hromau (SPM, union secretary);

(7) Leonid Soudalenko (REP, labour lawyer);

(8) Miraslau Sabchuk (SPM, OJSC “Minsk Tractor Plant” (MTZ);

(9) Aliaksandr Varabei (SPM, OJSC “Minsk Tractor Plant” (MTZ));

(10) Uladzislau Martsinovich (SPB, Minsk state medical university);

(11) Siarhei Sliazhou (BNP, OJSC “Belarusian Steel Works” (BMZ));

(12) Volha Belaziorava (BNP, OJSC “Grodno Azot”);

(13) Vitali Siadliar (BNP, OJSC “Krasnoselskstroymaterialy”);

(14) Ihar Povarau (BNP, OJSC “Belarusian Steel Works” (BMZ));

(15) Tatsiana Yekelchyk (SPB, activist, student of BSU);

(16) Yahor Kanetski (SPB, activist, student of BSU);

(17) Kasia Budzko (SPB, activist, student of BSPU);

(18) Viktoryia Hrankouskaya (SPB, activist, student of BNTU);

(19) Anastasiya Bulybenka (SPB, activist, student of BNTU);

(20) Siarhei Sliazhou (BNP, OJSC “Belarusian Steel Works” (BMZ));

(21) Uladzislau Martsinovich (SPB, Minsk state medical university).

2.  Recognition of all information materials and paraphernalia of Salidarnast e.V. as extremist materials. The decision on inclusion of them into the Republican List of Extremist Materials was adopted by the court of the Central District of Minsk on 28 March 2024.

Salidarnast e.V. was founded by Belarusian trade union leaders and activists, who were forced to leave the country after the liquidation and repression of democratic trade unions in 2022. Salidarnast e.V. The organization provides humanitarian, informational and legal support to trade union members and labour movement activists.

The legal consequences of recognition of all information materials and paraphernalia of Salidarnast e.V. as extremist materials is their ban on the territory of Belarus and the basis for bringing to administrative responsibility under article 19.11 of the Code of the Republic of Belarus on administrative offences (hereinafter - the CAO) “Distribution, production, storage, transportation of information products containing calls for extremist activities or promoting such activities” all those interacting with the organization, including subscribing to its social networks and distributing materials. The possible charge is inter alia an administrative arrest up to 30 days.

3.  In January 2024, Aliaksandr Yeudakimchyk (SPM leader) died after a long illness. Persecution for carrying out trade union activities and numerous administrative arrests had an extremely negative impact on Aliaksandr’s health, taking into account his age (68 years).

4.  Other facts of persecution (during the reporting period or that was unknown before) in the forms of:

Initiation of new criminal cases and sentencing

4.1. Persecution of Leanid Soudalenko (REP activist, labour lawyer).

On 4 March 2024, a new criminal case under article 361-4 of the CC “Facilitating extremist activities” for his trade union activities was opened in absentia against Leanid. The possible charges are restriction of liberty [“ограничение свободы”] for a term of up to four years or imprisonment [“лишение свободы”] for a term up to six years with or without a fine.

Due to well-founded fears of persecution, he was forced to flee Belarus and, therefore, cannot exercise his right to defence in this case: familiarization with the case materials and participation in the process is impossible outside of Belarus.

4.2. Persecution of Volha Brytsikava (BNP leader and activist and former worker of OJSC “Naftan”).

On 11 March 2024, the trial of Volha began behind closed doors. She was accused under article 130(1) of the CC “Inciting racial, national, religious or other social hatred or discord”.

On 5 April 2024, Volha was sentenced to three years of imprisonment. An appeal has been filed.

Additionally, a new criminal case has been opened against Volha on the basis of article 361(1) of the CC “Calls for restrictive measures (sanctions) and other actions aimed at harming the national security of the Republic of Belarus”. The possible charges are restriction of liberty [“ограничение свободы”] for a term of up to five years or imprisonment [“лишение свободы”] for a term of up to six years with or without a fine.

4.3. Persecution of Ihar Fiodarau (workers movement activist).

Ihar was detained on 27 February 2022 and sentenced to two years of imprisonment under article 368(1) of the CC “Insulting the President of the Republic of Belarus” on 25 May 2022.

Persecution while serving a criminal sentence, expressed in torture, restriction of rights and psychological violence

4.4. Persecution of Artsiom Zharnak (chairperson of the primary SPM organisation, former worker of MAZ who was sentenced to four years of imprisonment under articles of the CC: 342(1) “Organisation and preparation of actions that grossly violate public order, or active participation in them”; 361(3) “Calls for restrictive measures (sanctions) and other actions aimed at harming the national security of the Republic of Belarus”; 361–1(1) “Establishment of an extremist formation or participation in it” on 13 October 2022).

Administration of the Penal Colony No. 1 (Navapolatsk) artificially creates situations where Artsiom is subject to disciplinary sanctions:

- Artsiom has been deprived from short visits from 29 February 2024;

- In March 2024, Artsiom was placed in a punishment cell [“ШИЗО”] for 10 days;

- From April 2024: (1) Artsiom’s monthly purchase of food by prisoners in the camp store was deprived of 6 basic ones (according to the general regime), leaving 2 basic ones; (2) Artsiom was deprived of telephone calls with relatives.

4.5. Persecution of Palina Sharenda-Panasiuk (REP activist who was sentenced to one year of imprisonment under articles of the CC: 411(2) “Malicious disobedience to the requirements of the administration of a correctional institution executing a sentence of imprisonment” on 10 September 2023 and under 364 “Violence or threat of violence against an internal affairs officer”, 369 “Insulting a representative of authority”, 368 “Insulting the President of the Republic of Belarus” on 9 June 2021).

In March 2024 it was known about ongoing persecution of Palina by the administration of the Penal colony No. 24 (Zarečča): Polina stayed in the detachment after quarantine for about 2–3 weeks. At the end of January-early February she was thrown into a punishment cell [“ШИЗО”]. She appeared in the detachment only at the very end of February, looking very pale and thin. All this time, Polina was in the punishment cell [“ШИЗО”], probably for 20 days. At the beginning of March, Polina disappeared from the detachment again, but where exactly is unknown.

Since January 2024, there has been no contact with Palina. During this period, a lawyer was not allowed to see her three times.

On 19 March 2024, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) requested Belarus to urgently take temporary measures to protect Palina.

On 22 March 2024, State media (Belarus 1) broadcasted the video with Palina after the CEDAW request (it was mentioned in the video). Polina looked bad in the video and on her uniform there was a yellow tag, which in the colony discriminately identifies labour movement activists and political prisoners.

4.6. Persecution of Siarhei Shelest (Rabochy Rukh, BNP Naftan activist who was sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment under articles or the CC: 188 “Defamation”, 356(1) “Treason against the State”, 361–1(3) “Creation of an extremist formation or participation in it” on 17 February 2023).

In January 2024, Siarhei was transferred from the Penal Colony No. 15 (Mahiliou) to the Penal Colony No. 2 (Babruysk).

Administration of the Penal Colony No. 2 (Babruysk) artificially creates situations where Siarhei is subject to disciplinary sanctions:

- At the end of February 2024, Siarhei was placed in a punishment cell [“ШИЗО”] for 45 days;

- Siarhei is deprived from visits and parcels (only food parcels are allowed);

- On 1 May 2024, Siarhei was placed in сell-type premises (“помещение камерного типа”) which implies more severe restrictions on rights than punishment cell (“ШИЗО”).

4.7. Persecution of Aliaksandr Mishuk (BNP Vice-chair, chair BNP Belaruskali who was sentenced to 2,5 years of imprisonment under article 361 of the CC “Calls for restrictive measures (sanctions) and other actions aimed at harming the national security of the Republic of Belarus" on 15 November 2022).

Administration of the Penal Colony No. 15 (Mahiliou) artificially creates situations where Aliaksandr is subject to disciplinary sanctions:

- In January 2024, Aliaksandr was placed in a punishment cell (“ШИЗО”) for ten days;

- In February 2024, Aliaksandr was placed in a punishment cell (“ШИЗО”) for ten days.

4.8. Persecution of Aliaksandr Kapshul (Rabochy Rukh, BNP Naftan activist who was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment under articles of the CC: 295(2) “Illegal acts with regard to firearms, ammunition and explosives”, 356(1) “Treason against the State”, 361–1(3) “Creation of an extremist formation or participation in it”) and his relatives.

At the start of 2024, Aliaksandr was transferred from the Penal Colony No. 15 (Mahiliou) to the Penal Colony No. 2 (Babruysk) and then the regime for serving his sentence was tightened: he was transferred to the Prison No. 4 (Mahiliou).

Oksana Kapshul (Aliaksandr’s Kapshul former wife) was detained in January 2024 during mass detention in relation to trade unions and political activists and their relatives in Polotsk and Novopolotsk. She was sentenced on 30 January 2024 for subscription on extremist materials under article 19.11 of the CAO “Distribution, production, storage, transportation of information products containing calls for extremist activities or promoting such activities”; on 29 February 2024 – under article 25.15(2) of the CAO “Violation of legislation on foreign gratuitous aid”.

Administrative detentions and arrests

4.9. Persecution of Kyril Barstok (BNP, OJSC “Naftan”).

Kyril was detained at the end of March 2024 and sentenced to 25 days of administrative arrest under articles of the CAO: 19.11 “Distribution, production, storage, transportation of information products containing calls for extremist activities or promoting such activities”, 24.23 “Violation of the procedure for organizing or holding mass events”.

4.10. Persecution of Alena Vinakurava (BNP, OJSC “Naftan”).

Alena was detained on 23 January 2024 during mass detentions in relation to trade unions and political activists and their relatives in Polotsk and Novopolotsk.

4.11. Persecution of Eugene Mikhalovsky (BNP).

On 12 December 2023, Euheni was sentenced to 15 days of administrative arrest under article 19.11 of the CAO “Distribution, production, storage, transportation of information products containing calls for extremist activities or promoting such activities”.

Mass detentions of workers on the enterprises during their working days with cooperation with administration of the enterprises:

4.12. On 15 March 2024 there were detentions of workers of PUE “Rinaplastik” (Shchuchin) in relation to the distribution of extremist materials.

4.13. On 31 January 2024 there were detentions of 5 workers of OJSC “Glassworks “Neman” (Neman Glass Factory) in relation to the distribution of extremist materials.

4.14. In January 2024 there were detentions of about 10 workers of OJSC "Shchuchinagrokhimservice” in relation to the distribution of extremist materials.

4.15. In January 2024 there were detentions of as minimum of 4 workers of enterprises in Motol.

Searches at the premises of trade unions and labour activists

4.16. On 8 January 2024, a search was carried out in Novopolotsk at the place of registration of Naftan strike participant Aliaksei Malinovsky. (signed)

Sincerely,

Acting Chairperson of the BKDP, Maksim Pazniakou

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Endnotes

Endnote 1: GB.350/INS/16/2: 406th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association.

Endnote 2: CAN/D/Special sitting Belarus-C.87–C.98.

Endnote 3: See Appendix

Endnote 4: If the acts were committed for the second time (para. 2 of that provision); first time violation entails a maximum sentence of 6 years

Endnote 5: For detailed information see paragraph 7 of GB.350/INS/10(Rev.1) and para. 16 and page 25 of the 406th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association (GB.350/INS/16/2).

Endnote 6: Presidential Decree (Ukaz) No. 278 of 2 September 2023 on the procedure for issuing documents and performing actions. In this respect, see para. 8 of GB.349/INS/13(Rev.1).

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2011, Publication: 100th ILC session (2011)

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.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

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

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

Follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry
(complaint made under article 26 of the Constitution of the ILO)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government and the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2010. The Committee further notes the comments made by the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) on the application of the Convention, in law and in practice, in a communication dated 30 August 2010 and the Government’s reply thereon.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted with concern the 2009 comments made by the CDTU on the continuing discriminatory use of fixed-term contracts. The CDTU alleged, in particular, that members of free and independent unions are forced to leave their unions under the threat of non-renewal of their contracts and provided the following statistics on the impact of threats of non-renewal of fixed-term contracts on its affiliates: primary trade union at “Grodno-Azot” enterprise had lost 930 members since 2006; primary trade union at “Belshina” enterprise in Bobruisk – 50 members since 2006; primary trade union at “Polimir” chemical company in Novopolotsk – nearly 400 members since 2006; and primary trade union at Mozyr oil refinery company – at least 50 members since the beginning of 2009. The CDTU further alleged that trade union membership of primary trade unions at “Zenit” company in Vileika (Minsk region), Brest Pedagogical University, hydraulic power station in Novolukoml, and other small union organizations also suffered. According to the CDTU, the scenario of pressure on workers in all these cases was almost the same: the floor managers or managers on ideology would invite trade union members to sign statements indicating that they were leaving independent unions and discontinuing payment of trade union membership dues. Those who refused were threatened with dismissal and non renewal of their fixed-term contracts. The Committee had expressed the firm hope that the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (“the Council”) would examine the allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference suffered by the CDTU-affiliated trade unions and their members at the abovementioned enterprises, as well as at “Mogilev ZIV”, “Avtopark No. 1”, with regard to the members affiliated to the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) and requested the Government to inform it of the outcome of the discussion and of measures taken to redress the damages suffered. The Committee regrets that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect.

The Committee further notes with concern that in its recent communication, the CDTU alleges that this pressure on independent trade unions, through the short-term contract system, has continued and that Presidential Decree No. 164 of 31 March 2010 (to improve contract-based scheme of employment) has not solved the problem. The Committee understands that this Decree entitles an employer to conclude an employment contract for an indefinite term with an employee who has not violated labour discipline and who has worked for the employer for no less than five years, but does not deal with unfair use of the system.

The Committee further notes with concern the CDTU’s allegation that the number of violations of trade union rights has been increasing and that its members are still suffering from anti-union discrimination, including dismissal, non-renewal of labour contracts, pressure and harassment. In particular, the Committee notes with regret a case where a trade union activist of the Belarus Independent Trade Union (BITU) was dismissed from the Lukoml Power Station. The Committee observes that while at its June 2010 session, the Conference Committee noted the Government’s statement that this person was reinstated in December 2009 following the court decision, it appears now that the dismissal was confirmed on 21 May 2010 following an appeal by the employer and the prosecutor’s office.

The Committee further notes the allegations of threats and interference in internal trade union affairs and a new wave of pressure put on workers to leave their union at the Bobruisk plant of tractor parts and units (Belarusian Free Trade Union primary trade union), “Grodno-Azot” company, “Delta Style” company in Soligorsk, “Lavanstroi” construction company, Minsk automated line company (all BITU primary trade unions).

The Committee notes with regret that according to the CDTU, the Government refuses to use the tripartite council to discuss in substance the issue of trade union rights’ violation. The Committee notes with regret that in this regard, the Government has not referred to any discussions taking place at the Council sitting on 14 May 2010 or at the meeting of 15 October 2010 of a tripartite working group created by the Council, with reference to anti-union dismissals, threats, interference and pressure.

The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all of the abovementioned allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference relating to the CDTU and REWU-affiliated trade unions and their members at all of the abovementioned enterprises, are brought to the attention of the Council without further delay. It requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the discussion and of any remedial measures taken should it be found that anti-union discrimination and interference have occurred.

Furthermore, the Committee once again urges the Government to take measures to ensure that enterprise managers do not interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions and, on the other, instructions to the Prosecutor-General, Minister of Justice and court administrators that all complaints of interference and anti-union discrimination are thoroughly investigated. Should such complaints prove true, the necessary measures should be taken to put an end to such acts and punish those responsible.

Article 4. The Committee recalls that it had previously noted that at its meeting of 26 November 2009, the tripartite council discussed the issue of collective bargaining at enterprises with several trade union organizations, as well as development of social partnership including the conclusion of collective agreements at “Grodno-Azot” and “Naftan” enterprises. It requested the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of this discussion. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the situation with the collective agreement at “Naftan” has been positively resolved and that the CDTU-affiliated trade union had joined the agreement concluded by the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB). The Committee notes with concern, however, the CDTU’s indication that its proposals with regard to social partnership at “Naftan” and “Grodno-Azot” have been ignored or not considered at all. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that a tripartite working group, where trade unions are represented by both the FPB and the CDTU, has been created to prepare a new General Agreement for 2011–13. The Committee requests the Government to provide all relevant information in this respect.

The Committee strongly encourages the Government to intensify its efforts to ensure full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry without delay, in close cooperation with all the social partners and with the assistance of the ILO. The Committee further expresses the firm hope that the Government and the social partners will continue the cooperation within the framework of the tripartite Council and that the latter will have a real impact on ensuring that the right to organize is effectively guaranteed in law and in practice.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 100th Session and to reply in detail to the present comments in 2011.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry and the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2009. The Committee further notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) on the application of the Convention in law and in practice in communications dated 26 and 28 August 2009, respectively.

The Committee also takes note of the seminar on the implementation of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations organized jointly by the ILO and the Government of Belarus in January 2009 and welcomes the plan of action to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry subsequently adopted by the tripartite National Council on Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI). The Committee further notes with interest that, pursuant to the plan of action, the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Sphere (“the Council”) evolved into a tripartite body where trade unions could raise their concerns and that the Council’s composition now included three representatives of the CDTU.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee regretted that no information was provided by the Government on the measures taken to carry out independent investigations into the alleged instances of anti-union discrimination and interference suffered by members of the primary trade unions affiliated to the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) at the “Mogilev ZIV” and “Avtopark No. 1”. It also noted with regret the allegations by the ITUC of instances of anti-union discrimination against members of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BITU) at the “Polymir” company and the leaders of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU) at the Brest State Pedagogical University; as well as an alleged denial of access to the workplace (“Belaruskaliy”) of the leader of the BITU. In these circumstances, the Committee requested the Government to carry out independent investigations into all alleged instances of interference and anti-union discrimination and reiterated its request to immediately  redress all damages suffered from anti-union discrimination by those workers mentioned in the complaint filed under article 26 of the ILO Constitution, as well as those cases that had come to light the examination of the follow-up given by the Government to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication that at its sitting of 14 May 2009 the tripartite Council discussed cases of termination of employment of Messrs Gaichenko, Dukhomenko, Obukhov, Shaitor, Shcherbo and Stukov (listed in the 352nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association). According to the Government, these workers were invited to the Council’s meeting and the necessary measures were taken to ensure that employers did not obstruct their participation in the meeting and that the workers were given a day off for that purpose. The Government indicates that Mr Gachenko declined the invitation of the Council as he was satisfied with his employment at the “Naftan” enterprise in Novopolotsk. The Committee notes the minutes of the meeting provided by the Government and, in particular, the following conclusions, agreed upon by all members of the Council:

–           The Council noted that the abovementioned workers were not experiencing any pressure from their respective employers.

–           The Council took note of Mr Shcherbo’s desire to work in his previous post and decided to assist him in obtaining a post of an electrical train driver at Minsk Metro.

–           The Council noted that Mr Shaitor left the enterprise on 6 April 2009 and at the time of the meeting was unemployed. It was decided to ask the state employment service for assistance in getting him employed in his previous post or any other acceptable position.

–           The Council noted that Messrs Dukhomenko and Obukhov no longer wished to work at their previous workplaces unless they were reinstated with full compensation. Noting that under the current legislation it was impossible to reinstate them in their previous posts, Mr Dukhomenko was offered assistance with his entrepreneurial activities, while Mr Obukhov, who was satisfied with his current employment, was informed of opportunities for further training.

–           The Council discussed the situation of Mr Stukov who was currently employed at the Polotsk-Steklovolokno company. In April 2004 he was dismissed for causing material loss to his employers as established by the court. He was subsequently allowed back to his previous post in May 2004. Because of his dismissal, Mr Stukov lost his entitlement to a special length-of-service payment. The Council therefore decided to apply to the company for restoration of his full entitlements relating to the length of service which had been interrupted by his dismissal in April 2004.

–           The Council emphasized that it would continue examining the issues relating to the protection of trade union members from discrimination and considered it appropriate to discuss existing legal mechanisms for protecting citizens from anti-union discrimination in the light of national legislation and international labour standards.

The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that, following the Council’s decision, an agreement was reached with the Minsk Metro authority regarding the appointment of Mr Shcherbo, that Mr Shaitor has been hired as a driver at the Polotsk Dairy Combine and that full length-of-service entitlement was restored to Mr Stukov.

The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the Office of the Public Prosecutor examined a representation by the BITU leader with regard to the alleged denial of access to the workplace by the management of “Belaruskaliy”. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s statement that, at present, the dispute appears to no longer exist and that the trade union leader has visited the enterprise’s premises on a number of occasions without hindrance.

The Committee notes with concern the comments made by CDTU on the continuing discriminatory use of fixed-term contracts. In its communication, the CDTU alleges that members of free and independent unions are forced to leave their unions under the threat of dissolution or non-renewal of their contracts. The CDTU provides the following statistics on the impact of threats of non-renewal of fixed-term contracts on independent unions (CDTU’s affiliates):

–           primary trade union at “Grodno-Azot” enterprise has lost 930 members since 2006;

–           primary trade union at “Belshina” enterprise in Bobruisk has lost 50 members since 2006;

–           primary trade union at “Polimir” chemical company in Novopolotsk has lost nearly 400 members since 2006; and

–           primary trade union at Mozyr oil refinery company has lost at least 50 members since the beginning of 2009.

The CDTU further alleged that trade union membership of primary trade unions at “Zenit” company in Vileika (Minsk region), Brest Pedagogical University, hydraulic power station in Novolukoml and other small union organizations also suffered. According to the CDTU, the scenario of pressure on workers in all these cases was almost the same: the floor managers or managers on ideology would invite trade union members to sign statements indicating that they were leaving independent unions and discontinuing payment of trade union membership dues. Those who refused were threatened with dismissal and non‑renewal of their fixed-term contracts. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Council will examine the allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference suffered by the CDTU-affiliated trade unions and their members at the abovementioned enterprises, as well as at “Mogilev ZIV”, “Avtopark No. 1”, with regard to the members affiliated to the REWU, in the near future. It requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of the discussion and of measures taken to redress the damages suffered.

Furthermore, the Committee once again urges the Government to pursue vigorously, on the one hand, the instructions to be given to enterprises so as to ensure that enterprise managers do not interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions and, on the other, instructions to the Prosecutor-General, Minister of Justice and court administrators that all complaints of interference and anti-union discrimination are thoroughly investigated.

Article 4. The Committee notes with interest that the CDTU is now a party to the General Agreement for 2009–10. It observes, however, the alleged instances of refusal to sign collective agreements with the CDTU-affiliated trade unions at “Grodno-Azot” and “Naftan-Polimir” enterprises, as described in the CDTU communication. The Committee notes that at its sitting of 26 November 2009, the tripartite Council discussed the issue of collective bargaining at enterprises with several trade union organizations, as well as development of the social partnership including conclusion of collective agreements at “Grodno‑Azot” and “Naftan” enterprises. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of this discussion.

The Committee encourages the Government to intensify its efforts to ensure full implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry without delay in close cooperation with all the social partners and with the assistance of the ILO. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government and the social partners will continue the cooperation within the framework of the tripartite Council and that the latter will have a real impact on ensuring that the right to organize is effectively guaranteed in law and in practice.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry, the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association (352nd Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 303rd Session) and the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2008. The Committee also takes note of the seminar on anti-union discrimination which was held in Belarus in June 2008, with the participation of ILO representatives and tripartite constituents. The Committee further notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on the application of the Convention in law and in practice in a communication dated 29 August 2008.

The Committee recalls that all of its outstanding comments have raised issues directly relating to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to review and redress all complaints of anti-union discrimination that had been raised in the complaint filed under article 26 of the ILO Constitution or had come to light in the examination of the follow-up given by the Government to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee had also requested the Government to ensure an independent investigation into the alleged instances of interference and anti-union discrimination at the “Mogilev ZIV” and “Avtopark No. 1” suffered by the primary trade union affiliated to the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) and its members and to ensure that the rights of workers who had suffered anti-union discrimination in these enterprises were fully redressed. It had further asked the Government to indicate whether the officials of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU) were allowed access to the enterprise to meet their members and to provide information on the outcome of the discussion at the level of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in Social and Labour Spheres of the case concerning the “Belshina” enterprise. Finally, it had urged the Government to rapidly adopt new, improved mechanisms and procedures to ensure effective protection against all types of anti-union discrimination and to indicate the progress made in this regard.

The Committee regrets that the information provided by the Government is once again limited to the indication that the current legal framework provides for adequate measures to protect citizens from acts of anti-union discrimination, that enterprise labour commissions can examine disputes involving allegations of anti-union discrimination and that aggrieved workers can have recourse to the courts according to the procedures provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the Government, in 2007, no cases involving allegations of anti-union discrimination were lodged with the courts. The Committee notes the Government’s indication concerning the seminar on anti-union discrimination organized in June 2008 with the participation of representatives of employers’ organizations, trade unions, including those not affiliated to the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus, representatives of the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, judges and prosecutors, representatives of the ILO, the ITUC and of the International Organisation of Employers. The Government further states that it will continue its cooperation with the ILO and to that effect, another tripartite seminar on the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry is under preparation.

The Committee notes with regret the new ITUC comments on of anti-union discrimination against members of the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BITU) at “Polymir” company and the leaders of the BFTU at the Brest State Pedagogical University and the allegation of denial of access to workplace (“Belaruskaliy”) to the leader of the BITU, as well as a number of comments of interference, anti-union pressure and anti-union dismissals submitted by the BITU and the REWU to the Committee on Freedom of Association.

The Committee recalls that it had previously noted the Government’s statement that the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social and Labour Spheres reviewed complaints concerning specific enterprises. The Committee notes, however, from the recent report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, that the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) considers that this Council fails to play an effective role in eliminating violations of trade union rights. 

In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the measures taken so far by the Government to ensure the full application of Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention are insufficient. In these circumstances, the Committee once again urges the Government to pursue vigorously, on the one hand, the instructions to be given to enterprises so as to ensure that enterprise managers do not interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions and, on the other, instructions to the Prosecutor-General, Minister of Justice and court administrators that all complaints of interference and anti-union discrimination are thoroughly investigated.

The Committee further requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments submitted by the ITUC and to carry out independent investigations into all alleged instances of interference and anti-union discrimination and to keep it informed in this respect. It further reiterates its request to immediately redress the damages suffered from anti-union discrimination by those workers mentioned in the complaint filed under article 26 of the ILO Constitution, as well as those cases that had come to light in the examination of the follow-up given by the Government to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the developments in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report, the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in its review of the measures taken by the Government to implement the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry (345th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 298th Session) and the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2007. The Committee also takes note of the report of the mission carried out in Belarus in June 2007, in response to the requests made by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in 2007. The Committee further notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on the application of the Convention in law and in practice. Finally, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that consultations relating to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were held in Geneva in February and May 2007 between the Government’s representatives and the Office.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to review and redress all complaints of anti-union discrimination that had been raised in the complaint filed under article 26 of the ILO Constitution or had come to light in the examination of the follow-up given by the Government to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry. It further urged the Government rapidly to adopt new, improved mechanisms and procedures to ensure effective protection against all types of anti-union discrimination and to indicate the progress made in this regard.

The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that Mr Dolbik, whose contract had not been renewed following his contacts with the Commission of Inquiry, was hired in his position of air traffic controller by the “Belaeronovigatsia” and that a three-year contract was concluded with him. The Committee nevertheless regrets that no information was provided in respect of the other persons and therefore once again reiterates its previous request to redress their situations and to provide information as to their current contractual status.

The Committee notes that the Government once again indicates that the current legal framework provides for adequate measures to protect citizens from acts of anti-union discrimination. The Government once again refers to the tripartite General Agreement for 2006–08 wherein it was recommended that collective agreements include provisions setting out additional guarantees for workers elected to trade union bodies. The Government further indicates that the draft Law on trade unions maintains the rights of trade union members established in the current Law on trade unions. In addition, the new Law would include a provision establishing disciplinary, administrative, criminal and other liability for violations of the rights of trade unions and their associations.

The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in Social/Labour Spheres (Council of Experts), which includes the representatives of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU), was assigned a role of an independent body, having the confidence of the parties concerned, to consider complaints of interference in trade union affairs, as well as the cases of workers who believe they have been subjected to anti-union discrimination (without duplicating the work of existing judicial procedures or of the prosecution services and other state supervisory bodies). The Government indicates that, at a meeting held on 25 January 2007, the Council examined a complaint brought by the Belarusian Independent Trade Union (BITU) on the situation at the “Grodno Azot” and the “Belshina” enterprises and adopted unanimous conclusions. As a result, on 2 February 2007, the dispute concerning the accession of the BITU primary organization to the collective agreement at “Grodno Azot” was settled.

While noting this information, the Committee recalls that, in its previous observation, it noted the case of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU) in which enterprise management received warnings following violations of the BFTU’s rights, and requested the Government to confirm whether, following the warning, the BFTU officials have actually been allowed access to the premises of the enterprise concerned. The Committee regrets that the Government provides no information in this respect. The Committee further notes with regret from the 345th Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association new allegations of interference in trade union internal affairs, anti-union pressure and anti-union discrimination at the Mogilev Plant of Artificial Fiber (“Mogilev ZIV”) and “Avtopark No. 1”. In respect of the latter enterprise, the Committee notes with concern that, according to the allegations, the Prosecutor’s Office refused to investigate a complaint alleging the use of anti-union tactics by the management and that, instead of conducting proper inquiries into the matter, the Prosecutor applied to the Ministry of Justice for an opinion as to whether it was legal for workers of “Avtopark No. 1” to belong to the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU). The Committee requests the Government to ensure an independent investigation into the alleged instances of interference and anti-union discrimination at the “Mogilev ZIV” and “Avtopark No. 1” and to ensure that the rights of any workers who suffered anti-union discrimination in these enterprises are fully redressed. It also asks the Government to provide previously requested information with regard to the BFTU and the outcome of the discussion at the level of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in Social/Labour Spheres of the case concerning the “Belshina” enterprise.

Finally, the Committee notes with interest that, upon an invitation of the Government, a high-level Office mission went to Minsk to attend a seminar entitled “The issues of trade unions’ protection in the activity of Belarusian courts and prosecutor’s authorities of the Republic of Belarus” during which the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were disseminated and discussed. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that, in January 2007, the National Council for Social and Labour Issues (NCSLI) discussed the issue of collaboration between employers and unions at the enterprise level and drew the attention of representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations to the importance of strict observance of the principle of social partnership and to the inadmissibility of interference by employers in the internal affairs of trade unions. While noting the Government’s information on the measures taken to implement the relevant recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry (seminar for judges and prosecutors, the use of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in the Social/Labour Spheres to review complaints concerning specific enterprises and the discussion at the level of the NCSLI), in view of the recent allegations submitted to the Committee on Freedom of Association, as examined in its 345th Report, the Committee considers that the measures taken so far by the Government are insufficient. The Committee also regrets that the Government has not been able to provide any statistics relating to the cases of complaint of anti-union discrimination and the decisions rendered. In these circumstances, the Committee once again urges the Government to pursue vigorously, on the one hand, the instructions to be given to enterprises in a more systematic and accelerated manner so as to ensure that enterprise managers do not interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions and, on the other, instructions to the Prosecutor-General, Minister of Justice and court administrators that all complaints of interference and anti-union discrimination are thoroughly investigated.

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

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s reports, the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in its review of the measures taken by the Government to implement the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry (341st Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 295th Session), including the report of the mission carried out in Belarus in January 2006 in response to the requests made by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2005, and the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2006. The Committee further notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on the application of the Convention in law and in practice. Finally, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that consultations relating to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry were held in Geneva between a high-level delegation from Belarus (including the Deputy Prime Minister) and officials of the ILO (including the Executive Director for Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, the Director and Deputy Director of the Standards Department) and representatives from the ICFTU and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE).

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to review and redress all complaints of anti-union discrimination that had been raised in the article 26 complaint or had recently come to light in the examination of the follow-up given by the Government to the Commission’s recommendations. It further urged the Government rapidly to adopt new, improved mechanisms and procedures to ensure effective protection against all types of anti-union discrimination and to indicate the progress made in this regard.

The Committee notes that the Government once again indicates that there is already sufficient protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in the labour legislation and that workers have the possibility of recourse to the judicial system if they consider their rights have been violated. The Government further provides statistics on the number of labour inspections carried out and the number of violations of the labour legislation that were found, yet has not indicated whether any of these related to anti-union discrimination. Finally, the Government refers to the tripartite General Agreement for 2006-08 wherein it was recommended that collective agreements include provisions setting out additional guarantees for workers elected to trade union bodies.

As for the investigation of complaints concerning anti-union discrimination and retaliation, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, following the consultations held in Geneva, it understands that the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in Social/Labour Spheres, which includes representatives from the Government, trade unions and employers’ organizations, NGOs and academic experts, could be an appropriate place to review such complaints, as could be the NCLSI. The Government also referred to the use of the judicial system by the unions outside the structure of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), the various investigations carried out and the conclusions, including one case where the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU) was found to have cause for its complaint and the enterprise officials received warnings and another three cases where members of the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) had won their court cases, although no details were provided as to the subject of the complaints.

The Committee nevertheless notes with regret that the Government has not been able to provide any statistics relating to the cases of complaint of anti-union discrimination and the decisions rendered. In addition, the Committee considers that the issuing of warnings in the one case of the BFTU is not likely to serve as a sufficiently dissuasive sanction for the violation committed and requests the Government to confirm whether, following the warning, the BFTU has actually been allowed access to the premises of the enterprise concerned.

The Committee further notes with regret that in none of the cases of anti-union discrimination and retaliation which were the subject of the Commission of Inquiry, nor in respect of the non-renewal of contracts of certain persons who had testified before the Commission, has there been any action to redress the situation or to seriously and independently investigate the claims (see 341st Report, paragraph 48). The Committee does not consider that it is in a position to judge whether either of the national councils referred to by the Government could adequately provide the impartiality necessary to undertake an independent investigation of the complaints raised and thus urges the Government to discuss this matter with the trade unions most directly concerned so as to determine the most appropriate mechanisms and procedures to ensure effective protection against all types of anti-union discrimination and to keep it informed of the progress made in thoroughly reviewing the outstanding complaints and the results achieved.

Article 2. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to transmit a copy of a letter sent to directors of enterprises explaining the norms set by current national legislation and international labour standards. In its reports, the Government indicates that the letter was sent to 47 national government bodies and other state-run establishments. These state bodies then took the necessary steps to ensure that the letter from the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection reached the actual enterprises within their system. The Government adds that the Ministry of Industry forwarded the letter to the establishments under its remit and held a meeting on the issue with management representatives at the largest industrial enterprises. The Government transmitted a copy of the letter and the minutes of meetings showing how the matter was studied at some 57 enterprises. Noting that the information provided by the Government reiterates that which was provided to the Committee on Freedom of Association (see 341st Report, paragraph 47), the Committee, like the Committee on Freedom of Association, asks the Government to pursue these instructions in a more systematic and accelerated manner so as to ensure that enterprise managers and directors do not interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions and that they will respect the autonomy of trade unions.

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

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report and the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in its review of the measures taken by the Government to implement the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry (339th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 294th Session). The Committee further notes the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on the application of the Convention in law and in practice and requests the Government to transmit its observations thereon.

In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that it had established a special experts advisory group, including representatives of Government, trade unions, employers’ associations, non-governmental organizations and academics, to conduct a comprehensive review of its entire system of social and labour relations. The Committee trusted that the advisory group would represent a broad spectrum of society and, in particular, that the trade union representation would include all the national-level trade unions and requested information from the Government as to the composition of this advisory group.

The Committee notes from the Government’s latest report that trade union representatives had been invited from both the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) to participate in this expert advisory group, the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in Social/Labour Spheres. The Council held its first meeting in August 2005 and considered the following two questions: what form of contract should be used for workers in Belarus; and conceptual approaches for improving the Law on Trade Unions. The Council decided that it would examine these questions further at its next meeting. As regards the comments made by the CDTU on 27 August 2004 with respect to a number of proposed amendments to the Law on Trade Unions, which it considered would lead to the dissolution of independent trade unions and the establishment of a state-controlled trade union monopoly, the Committee refers to its comments under Convention No. 87. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in the work of the Council for the Improvement of Legislation in Social/Labour Spheres and, in particular, of any progress made by this Council in implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to review and redress all complaints of anti-union discrimination that had been raised in the Article 26 complaint and to indicate the progress made in putting into place truly effective procedures for protection against such discrimination and other retaliatory acts. The Committee notes that the Government merely refers to the prohibition of acts of anti-union discrimination provided for in the Law on Trade Unions and the possibility of workers having recourse to the judicial system if they consider their rights have been violated. The Government further refers to the constant monitoring it undertakes with respect to application of the contractual form of employment in practice and provides statistics on the number of labour inspections carried out and the number of violations of the labour legislation that were found, the fines imposed and the disciplinary sanctions given.

The Committee regrets, however, that the Government has not provided any information as to the steps taken to review and redress the complaints of anti-union discrimination that had been raised in the Article 26 complaint, nor as to the adoption of any new mechanisms to ensure that this protection is effectively ensured in practice. The Committee notes with deep concern from the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in respect of the measures taken by the Government to implement the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry that, not only has the Government provided no information as to the measures taken to institute independent investigations into these complaints, but in addition, several persons who had testified before the Commission have subsequently found themselves without employment (see 339th Report, paragraph 83). The Committee urges the Government to provide detailed information, in its next report, on the measures taken to review not only the earlier complaints of anti-union discrimination, but also those that have recently come to light in the examination of the follow-up given by the Government to the Commission’s recommendations. It further urges the Government rapidly to adopt new, improved mechanisms and procedures to ensure effective protection against all types of anti-union discrimination and, in particular, to redress the situation of those who have lost their employment and to keep it informed of the measures taken in this regard.

Article 2. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that it was taking measures to inform all directors of enterprises, including those who were trade union members, of the inadmissibility of any form of interference in trade union activities. It requested the Government to provide further information on the precise measures taken in this regard, as well as any notable impact such measures might have had in curbing managerial interference in trade union affairs.

The Committee notes that the Government refers to a special letter of instruction that was sent to all parties concerned, explaining the norms set by current national legislation and international labour standards. The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of this letter with its next report, as well as a precise indication of those parties to whom it was sent.

Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4. Having noted in its previous comments the conclusions of the Commission of Inquiry with respect to the impact of the many acts of interference and anti-union discrimination, as well as the consequences of non-registration, upon the collective bargaining rights of a number of primary-level trade unions, the Committee trusted that the Government would take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment of collective bargaining rights by all these organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it does not have any information regarding actual refusals by employers to conduct collective bargaining with trade unions.

The Committee would recall that the concern expressed by the Commission of Inquiry related not only to direct refusals to negotiate with trade unions, but the evident impact unjustified denial of registration would have on a trade union’s ability to bargain collectively. In this regard, the Committee notes from the recent conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association that no progress appears to have been made in respect of the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendations to register the primary-level organizations that were the subject of the complaint. In addition, the Committee notes with concern from these conclusions that the spillover of non-registration of these primary organizations has led to the denial of registration of three regional organizations of the Belarussian Free Trade Union (BFTU) (organizations in Mogilev, Baranovichi and Novopolotsk-Polotsk) (see 339th Report, paragraph 76). The Committee therefore trusts that the Government will take urgent measures to ensure the re-registration of these organizations both at the primary and the regional level so that they may once again enjoy the right to bargain collectively.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 95th Session and to reply in detail to the present comments in 2006.]

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

The Committee takes note of the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry established to examine the observance by the Government of Belarus of the present Convention and Convention No. 87. The Committee further notes the reply of the Government to the report of the Commission of Inquiry by virtue of article 29 of the ILO Constitution, which was noted by the Governing Body at its 291st Session (GB.291/6/1), in which the Government has indicated certain measures it intends to take in order to implement the recommendations of the Commission and refers to its need for ILO technical assistance in this regard. In particular, it notes the Government’s indication that it has established a special experts advisory group, including representatives of Government, trade unions, employers’ associations, non-governmental organizations and academics, to conduct a comprehensive review of its entire system of social and labour relations. The Committee trusts that the advisory group will represent a broad spectrum of society and, in particular, that the trade union representation will include all the national-level trade unions. It requests the Government to specify, in its next report, the composition of this advisory group, and to indicate the progress made in its review.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry as regards the allegations of anti-union discrimination, harassment and retaliatory acts. It notes in particular that the Commission considered:

... that the number of cases of workplace harassment and discrimination brought to its attention, the details provided by the individuals concerned, their systematic link to either the CDTU and its national affiliates (in particular the Belarussian Independent Trade Union (BITU), the BFTU and the Free Metal Workers’ Union (FMWU) or the dissident branch trade unions in the FPB (the AAMWU and the REWU), lead to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence available to call for a thorough investigation of all these matters. The Commission regrets that the Government has not taken any steps in this regard, nor does it seem to take any of these allegations seriously. The Commission is particularly concerned that a number of these cases concern the actual livelihood of entire families, where trade union activists appear to have not only lost their jobs, but find it impossible to obtain any further employment. In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the Government has not complied with its obligation under Convention No. 98 to ensure effective measures of protection against anti-union discrimination, accompanied by sufficient and dissuasive sanctions, nor has it properly ensured the right of all workers to form and join organizations of their own choosing as provided in Article 2 of Convention No. 87 (see Trade union rights in Belarus, report of the Commission of Inquiry, July 2004, paragraph 617).

It further notes the serious issues raised in the Commission’s report concerning the discriminatory use of fixed-term contracts against certain trade union leaders and members. The Committee notes the indication in the Government’s response that the Commission’s recommendations designed to improve procedures and mechanisms of protection are particularly important. It asks the Government to indicate, in its next report, the measures taken to review and redress all complaints of anti-union discrimination and the progress made in putting into place truly effective procedures for protection against anti-union discrimination and other retaliatory acts.

Article 2. As regards the findings by the Commission that there had been several important acts of interference in internal trade union affairs at the enterprise level, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is taking measures to inform all directors of enterprises, including those who are trade union members, of the inadmissibility of any form of interference in trade union activities. It requests the Government to provide further information, in its next report, on the precise measures taken in this regard, as well as any notable impact such measures have had in curbing managerial interference in trade union affairs.

Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4. Finally, the Committee notes from the Commission’s conclusions that it has observed that many of the acts of interference and anti-union discrimination, as well as the consequences of non-registration caused by Presidential Decree No. 2 (see observation on Convention No. 87), have resulted in a denial of collective bargaining rights of a number of primary-level trade unions and have further hindered the rights of these organizations even to enter into negotiations with their employer. The Committee refers the Government to its comment under Convention No. 87 and trusts that it will take all necessary measures to ensure that the collective bargaining rights of these organizations are not impeded.

Finally, the Committee also takes note of the observations made by the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) on the application of the Convention and requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

See under Convention No. 87.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report. It further notes with interest the entry into force of the Law on Trade Unions of 14 January 2000 and the Labour Code of 30 June 1999. It wishes to raise a certain number of points concerning the application of the following Articles of the Convention.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information concerning concrete sanctions referred to in section 465 of the Labour Code and section 23 of the Law on Trade Union in case of acts of anti-union discrimination and interference as well as additional information about the procedures of redress (legal provisions, effectiveness, rapidness in practice, etc.).

Article 4 of the Convention. Collective bargaining. The Committee notes that under section 354 of the Labour Code the representation of the workers’ interests can be executed by correspondent trade unions and other bodies representing workers, acting according to the legislation. The Committee requests the Government to indicate what "other body" could represent the workers and whether this "other body" representing workers have a right to collective bargaining even in the presence of a trade union.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee takes note of the Government's report. The Committee notes that section 5 of the Act of 24 November 1992 on Collective Agreements, in contradiction with section 238 of the Labour Code, allows non-unionized workers representing 50 per cent of the workforce the right to negotiate even when one or more trade unions exist. The Committee points out that this provision does not promote collective bargaining within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee considers that, when there is no majority, collective bargaining rights should be granted to the unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee requests the Government to amend the legislation accordingly so that collective bargaining with non-unionized groups is only possible when there is no trade union. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any measures taken in this regard.

The Committee notes that it will examine the conformity of the provisions of the Presidential Edicts No. 639 of 1997, No. 252 of 1999 and No. 348 of 1999 with the Convention as soon as a translation into one of the working languages of the ILO is available.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. With reference to the necessity of providing in legislation effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against employers guilty of carrying out acts of anti-union discrimination against workers and acts of interference against workers' organizations, the Committee notes with regret that the Government merely indicates in its report that section 135 of the Labour Code provides for sanctions for violation of the Code. Indeed, the Committee observes that this section is designed to punish workers for breaches of labour discipline and therefore does not apply the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to supply with its next report copies of the other legislative provisions mentioned in its report under which violations of labour legislation are punishable, namely:

- section 41 of the 1984 Code, as amended, on administrative liabilities;

- paragraph 4 of Decision No. 664 of the Council of Ministers of 30 September 1993;

- sections 133 and 134 of the Criminal Code, as amended; and

- sections 442, 444, 456 and 460 of the Civil Code, as amended,

to enable it to ascertain to what extent the Convention is applied to employers who do not respect the provisions of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the detailed information supplied by the Government in its report and the coming into force of the Act of 22 April 1992 respecting trade unions, the Act of 24 November 1992 on collective agreements and accords and the Act of 15 December 1992 to amend the Labour Code.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes that national legislation contains several provisions intended to protect workers against acts of anti-union discrimination (sections 4 and 20 of the Act respecting trade unions and section 61 of the Labour Code) as well as to protect workers' organizations against acts of interference (section 19 of the Act respecting trade unions and section 230 of the Labour Code).

However, it recalls that the effectiveness of such provisions depends to a large extent on the way in which these provisions are applied in practice and on the compensation and sanctions which are envisaged. Legal standards are inadequate if they are not combined with effective and expeditious procedures.

The Committee requests the Government to state in its next report whether the national legislation provides for sanctions in the event of violations of the above sections of the Act respecting trade unions and the Labour Code and, if so, to describe their contents.

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

Article 4 of the Convention. With reference to its previous request, the Committee notes from the Government's report that the provisions of the Convention are applied by the national legislation.

The Committee also notes that a Congress of Byelorussian SSR trade unions was held in October 1990 at which a draft agreement was adopted on the social guarantees needed as a result of the switch to a market economy.

The Committee asks the Government to provide the text of this agreement. It also requests it to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged with regard to collective bargaining as a result of the profound economic changes now taking place.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous request. It asks the Government to continue sending any new information regarding the application of the Convention.