Interim Report - Report No 332, November 2003

1. 301. The Committee examined the substance of this case on several occasions, when it presented interim reports to the Governing Body [324th Report, paras. 133-218, 325th Report, paras. 111-181, 326th Report, paras. 210-244, 329th Report, paras. 217-281, 330th Report, paras. 207-238 and 331st Report, paras. 122-168, approved by the Governing Body at its 280th, 281st, 282nd, 285th, 286th and 287th Sessions (March, June and November 2001, November 2002 and March and June 2003)]. New allegations and supplementary information were received from the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) (2 and 29 May, 5 and 9 September, and 29 October 2003), the Automobile and Agricultural Machinery Workers’ Union (AAMWU) (2 June, 17 July, 10 September and 13 and 31 October 2003), the Belarusian Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers (BPAD) (4 September 2003), the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU) (10 September 2003) and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (30 October 2003). The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) transmitted new allegations in communications dated 18 September and 31 October 2003.
2. 302. The Government transmitted further observations in a communication dated 11 September 2003.
3. 303. Belarus has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
4. 304. From 8 to 11 September 2003, at the request of the Government, a mission was carried out to Belarus by Mr. Kari Tapiola, Executive Director of the Sector on Standards and Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and Ms. Karen Curtis, Head of Section, Freedom of Association Branch, to discuss the issues raised in the case and possible measures to implement the Committee’s recommendations. The mission report is attached as Annex I.
5. 305. The Committee further notes that an article 26 complaint for non-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), was deposited with the Secretary-General of the International Labour Conference at its 91st Session (June 2003) by a number of workers’ delegates. The question of whether to establish a commission of inquiry has been placed on the agenda of the present (288th) Session of the Governing Body (November 2003).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 306. At its June 2003 Session, the Governing Body approved the following recommendations in the light of the Committee’s interim conclusions:
2. (a) The Committee once again urges the Government to establish independent investigations, having the confidence of all parties concerned, into the allegations of government interference in the elections of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), the Agricultural Sector Workers’ Union (ASWU), the Brest Regional Association of Trade Unions and the Brest Regional Committee of Science and Education Unions, with the aim of rectifying any effects of this interference. The Committee strongly requests the Government to keep it informed of the results of these investigations.
3. (b) The Committee urges the Government to institute independent investigations into the claims that state and local authorities have acted in such a way as to promote the dissolution of the Belarusian Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers (BPAD) and the Minsk Regional Trade Union Organization of Employees in the Cultural Sphere (MRTUECS) and into the allegations of anti-union discrimination in respect of some members of these organizations and, if the allegations are proven to be true to take all necessary measures to ensure that these organizations are protected from such interference in the future and that any acts of anti-union discrimination are redressed. The Committee requests the Government to reply in detail to these allegations and to keep it informed of the outcome of these investigations.
4. (c) Noting with regret the very serious allegations of interference in trade union internal affairs made by the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) in its communication of 2 May 2003, the Committee requests the Government to reply as a matter of urgency to the matter raised therein. The Committee further requests the Government to reply in detail to the allegations made in the complainants’ communications of February 2003 concerning various acts of favouritism towards the FPB.
5. (d) The Committee urges the Government to make all efforts to ensure that the representative workers’ organizations concerned may effectively participate in the various bodies established in the country for the promotion of social dialogue.
6. (e) Deploring the fact that the Government has taken no steps to implement its previous recommendations, the Committee once again urges it to:
7. (i) take the necessary measures to ensure that Mr. Evgenov, Mr. Evmenov and Mr. Bourgov are reinstated in their posts with full compensation for any lost wages and benefits;
8. (ii) institute independent investigations into the allegations of anti-union tactics made in respect of the GPO “Khimvolokno” Free Trade Union and the Free Trade Union at the “Zenith” plant;
9. (iii) institute an independent investigation into the allegations of managerial pressure for the establishment of a regional trade union of electronics industry workers and for the affiliation of the Tsvetotron plant to the new regional union;
10. (iv) take the necessary steps for the registration of the Belarusian Free Trade Union at the Khimvolokno State Production Amalgamation and eliminate any remaining obstacles to trade union registration noted in its previous report;
11. (v) amend Presidential Decree No. 8 so that workers’ and employers’ organizations may benefit freely, and without previous authorization, from the assistance which might be provided by international organizations for activities compatible with freedom of association, and Presidential Decree No. 11 so as to ensure that restrictions on picketing and other demonstrations called by workers’ or employers’ organizations are limited to cases where the action ceases to be peaceful or results in a serious disturbance of public order and so that any sanctions imposed will be proportionate to the violation incurred;
12. (vi) provide information on the alleged refusal to employ the re-elected chairperson of the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers at the Minsk Automobile Plant, Mr. Marinich.
13. The Government is requested to provide all necessary information in respect of all the above matters so that the Committee may examine this case in full knowledge of the facts.
14. B. The complainant’s additional allegations
15. 307. In its communication of 2 May 2003, the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) states that an attempt has been made by the Chairperson of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), Mr. Kozik, to remove the Chairperson of the REWU, Mr. Fedynich, from office. The REWU indicates that a decision was taken to this end by the FPB presidium, instructing first-level organizations of the REWU to hold an extraordinary congress in order to replace Mr. Fedynich. The Deputy Minister of Industry has visited enterprises in Vitebsk and Minsk in order to pressure the trade union committees and their representatives in this regard.
16. 308. The REWU recalls that the Third Plenary Session of the Republican Council of Trade Unions, held on 19 December 2002, featured an agenda item on the follow-up to decisions taken at the Fourth Extraordinary Congress of the FPB and the Third Congress of the REWU on the defence of the socio-economic rights and interests of workers in the branch and the strengthening of the trade union’s organizational unity. Both Mr. Kozik and the Deputy Minister of Industry participated in the plenary session. In reply to the pressure brought to bear on the members of the Republican Council representing the trade union committees, Mr. Fedynich made a motion to add an item to the agenda on “Confidence in G. Fedynich, Chairperson of the REWU” and to hold a secret ballot. The plenary session approved the motion, despite the interventions by Mr. Kozik and the Deputy Minister, by 49 in favour and only one vote against. At that time it was decided not to convene an extraordinary congress of the REWU until Mr. Fedynich’s term expired in September 2005.
17. 309. Despite having subsequently concluded a collective agreement which met with the full support of the trade union members, the REWU states that, on 27 March 2003 at an ongoing seminar of senior officials and local authorities on improving ideological work, the President of Belarus made a report in which the Minister of Industry was given two months to solve the problem posed by the leaders of the branch unions of workers in the agricultural machinery industry, Mr. Bukhvostov (Chairperson of the Automobile and Agricultural Machinery Workers’ Union (AAMWU)) and of the REWU, Mr. Fedynich, describing them as belonging to the opposition, which was irreconcilably hostile to the State. Mr. Kozik was said to have added that these two leaders were not prepared to discharge their main obligation – trade union work and were actively opposed to society and the FPB.
18. 310. Subsequently, in its communication dated 29 May 2003, the REWU states that officials of the Ministry of Industry had offered Mr. Fedynich a post as company director or deputy director on condition that he agree to resign his post as chairperson. It adds that the FPB together with the Ministry of Industry held the constituent general assembly of the Belarus Industrial Association (BIA), while barring admittance to members of the REWU and the AAMWU. The REWU believes that this effort is aimed at making their organizations subordinate to the existing power structures. The REWU indicates in this regard that the Ministry of Industry had sent telegrams to various undertakings ordering directors and union committee chairpersons to attend the constituent general assembly of the BIA. While a number of trade union committees disregarded the call, some individuals did attend out of fear of losing their jobs.
19. 311. Subsequently, according to the REWU, the Deputy Minister of Industry visited “Monolit” in Vitebsk to force the plant director to put a proposal to the union committee affiliated to REWU that it should join the BIA instead. While the director did put the proposal forward, the conference did not support it. The Deputy Minister visited other industrial undertakings, leaving copies of the by-laws of the new organization and the leaders of nine power generation undertakings were told to begin the work of affiliating existing primary-level organizations to the new industrial union.
20. 312. Finally, in its communications of 5 and 9 September 2003, the REWU indicates that acts of interference are continuing and have even intensified. The Deputy Minister has continued to visit plants, calling on managers to affiliate to the new union. A series of measures have been used to place pressure on managers, and through them the union committee chairperson and members to get them to leave the REWU, including: threats not to renew contracts, to cancel orders and to refuse to sanction official trips abroad. All of this was going on without any response from the leadership of the FPB, to which the REWU is affiliated and which should be defending its interests.
21. 313. The AAMWU, in a communication dated 2 June 2003, confirms the above information about the attempts to remove their chairperson from office. A decision had been taken by the presidium of the FPB council to apply to the union executive bodies to remove Mr. Bukhvostov from his post as chairperson because of his having complained to the ILO. The Chairperson of the FPB demanded that this question be placed on the agenda of the plenary conference of the AAMWU. Despite the pressure brought to bear on council members by city and district officials and company representatives, the results of the ballot led to the removal of this question from the plenary conference agenda.
22. 314. The AAMWU signed a wage agreement with the Ministry of Industry for the year 2003 and a number of demands and proposals had been put forward to the Government, which met with widespread support from union members. Despite this, a presidential instruction to remove the AAMWU chairperson was issued on 27 March (an extract from the President’s address was attached). The complainant adds that these instructions have nothing to do with the work undertaken by the AAMWU or its chairperson, but rather correspond to an attempt to eliminate anyone who stands for constitutional principles, law and democracy.
23. 315. The AAMWU further indicates in its communication of 17 July 2003 that the administration of the Oktiabrsky region of Mogilev has now denied registration to the local trade union at the Mogilev Automobile Plant, a primary trade union organization of the AAMWU, despite the fact that all the necessary documents were submitted. A copy of the letter refusing registration was attached to the complaint. The refusal letter merely indicates that not all of the necessary documents were submitted, without indicating precisely what was missing. In its communication of 10 September, the AAMWU complains of continuing acts of interference in its internal trade union affairs.
24. 316. In a communication dated 4 September 2003, the Belarusian Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers (BPAD) sent information concerning the decision of the Supreme Court on 7 August 2003 to suspend its activities. The BPAD explains that on 7 August 2003 the Supreme Court, at the request of the Prosecutor-General, suspended its activities. The court cited section 5 of the Law on Trade Unions according to which, where the activities of trade unions are unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful, they can be suspended. The Supreme Court deemed it to be a breach of legislation that the trade union in question did not have the required minimum membership for national level trade unions of 500 members.
25. 317. The BPAD objected to the Supreme Court ruling stating that: (1) in 1999, BPAD had undergone re-registration with the Ministry of Justice, in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 2 of 26 January 1999; and (2) that the procedure for suspending the activities of the union was originally instigated by the Chairperson of the State Aviation Committee, Mr. F. F. Ivanov, who repeatedly made politically motivated statements on this matter to the Ministry of Justice and made clear the real reasons for which in his view the trade union had to be closed down. A copy of a letter from Mr. Ivanov to the Minister of Justice dated 14 July 2003 was attached to the complaint. In this letter Mr. Ivanov refers to:
26. … the reply from your Ministry (of Justice) of 17 October 2002 (No. 06-11/12441) signed by the head of the civil aviation department M. M. Sukhinin fails to give the State Aviation Committee a clear and unequivocal answer. This sort of approach to the problem by the Ministry of Justice creates conditions for the establishment of free and independent trade unions in all undertakings in this sector, which will jeopardize the ability of the civil aviation sector to do its job, as well as going against the demands made of the trade unions by President Lukashenko.
27. The leaders of the Belarusian Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers (BPAD) continue their efforts to destabilize the situation not only within the union, but also throughout the sector (a copy of the BPAD complaint is attached). Viktor Grigorevich [the Minister of Justice], I urge you to take a hand in resolving this problem and reconsider the issue of the legality of the union’s registration.
28. 318. According to BPAD, no concrete evidence is presented to support these allegations. On the contrary, the head of the department for public associations at the Ministry of Justice, Mr. Sukhinin, had replied earlier to the Chairperson of the State Aviation Committee:
29. The Belarusian Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers has republic-level status since at the time of re-registration it had more than 500 members from five regions and the city of Minsk (paragraph 3, Presidential Decree No. 2 of 26 January 1999) and is not required to establish structural or membership criteria for its representative status or financial accounts (section 7, Law on Trade Unions).
30. In our view, the conclusions [of the Chairman of the State Aviation Committee] are based on personal prejudices, rather than a wish to enforce the terms of sections 23 and 28 of the Law on Trade Unions.
31. All this shows that the re-registration was justified and in conformity with legislation, and the decision not to register the union should not have been taken.
32. 319. The BPAD raises a number of other procedural and legal arguments against the Supreme Court ruling. It adds that it had called on witnesses who testified to the fact that members of the union were subjected to psychological pressure aimed at forcing them to leave their union and join the state union. (Witness testimony was provided with the BPAD communication of 4 September.) According to these witnesses, the illegal methods used included: dismissals of BPAD members (three altogether); threats of dismissal through compulsory transfer to new contractual arrangements; threats of “biased” appraisals; disinformation aimed at BPAD members regarding the legitimacy of the trade union, etc. The Prosecutor-General ignored all of this testimony and the court failed to consider this information. Yet to talk about the total membership of a trade union under such a climate of fear in which its members are living is just nonsensical. According to the BPAD, this ruling was politically motivated and attests to the lack of an independent judicial system in Belarus.
33. 320. In its communication dated 10 September 2003, the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU) contends that there is a de facto ban on the Belarusian Free Trade Union and its activities in the Republic of Belarus. It attaches, in this regard, a list of the following 31 non?registered first-level organizations affiliated to the BFTU: first-level organization of workers of the Mogilev Automobile Plant, first-level organization of workers of the open joint-stock company “Stroitrest No. 12” in Mogilev; first-level organization of workers and individual entrepreneurs in Mogilev; first-level organization of workers of the “Parikmakherskaya Kristina” production cooperative in Mogilev; first-level organization of workers of the “Parikmakherskaya Aleksandrina” production cooperative in Mogilev; first-level organization of workers of the “Parikmakherskaya Uspekh” production cooperative in Mogilev; first-level organization of workers of the “Parikmakherskaya Pavlinka” production cooperative in Mogilev; first-level organization of workers of the open joint-stock company “Zavod iskusstvennogo volokna im. V. V. Kuibyshev” in Mogilev; Mogilev Regional Organization of the Belarusian Free Trade Union; first-level organization of the open joint-stock company “Khimvolokno” in Grodno; first-level organization of workers of the “Samana Plus” joint venture in Mosty; first-level organization of workers of the “Orshansky lnokombinat” national unitary industrial and trading enterprise; first-level organization of the “Orsha – Zhilfond” municipal unitary housing maintenance enterprise of the Orsha municipal executive committee; first-level organization of workers of the “Orshateploset” municipal unitary enterprise; first-level organization of workers of the “Avtogidrousilitel” plant national unitary production enterprise in Borisov; first-level organization of workers of “Steklovolokno” in Polotsk; first-level organization of workers of the Novopolotsk housing and utilities municipal unitary enterprise; first-level organization of workers of the Novopolotsk heat station; first?level organization of workers of the “Naftan” production association in Novopolotsk; first-level organization of workers of Secondary School No. 7 in Novopolotsk; first-level organization of workers of Secondary School No. 4 in Novopolotsk; first-level organization of workers of Secondary School No. 10 in Polotsk; Novopolotsk-Polotsk Regional Organization of the Belarusian Free Trade Union; first-level organization of workers of the central district hospital in Gantsevichi; first-level organization of workers of the Baranovichi automated line plant; first-level organization of workers of the Baranovichi Technical College of the Belkoopsoyuz (Belarusian Republican Union of Consumer Societies); Baranovichi Regional Organization of the Belarusian Free Trade Union; Minsk Automobile Plant, affiliated to the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers; Minsk Tractor Plant, affiliated to the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers; Minsk Electrotechnical Plant, affiliated to the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers; Minsk Motor Plant, affiliated to the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers.
34. 321. In its communication dated 18 September 2003, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) brings to the Committee’s attention that the regional court of Minsk had that day sentenced the President of the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions, Alexander Yaroshuk, to ten days’ imprisonment, for allegedly “showing disrespect for the Supreme Court of Belarus”.
35. 322. By way of background, the ICFTU explains that, some weeks ago, Alexander Yaroshuk had protested, in the newspaper Narodnaja volja, against the decision of the Supreme Court to cancel the legal registration of the Belarusian Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers (BPAD). The union was forced to dissolve itself as a consequence of the Supreme Court ruling. Further to his interview with Narodnaja volja, a legal suit was launched against Mr. Yaroshuk, which led to the prison sentence mentioned above.
36. 323. The ICFTU has stressed that Mr. Yaroshuk is a well-respected trade union leader of an organization with which it has had regular cooperation over the years, and that his only action was to defend the right of a well-established union to exist and to pursue its activities, in full accordance with the law. The ICFTU considers the sentence against Mr. Yaroshuk is further evidence that the public authorities of Belarus do not accept the very basic principles of freedom of association, nor respect the fundamental right to freedom of expression.
37. 324. In its communication of 13 October 2003, the AAMWU alleges the continuing interference by the authorities in trade union affairs, including the refusal to register and, in certain cases, the cancellation of registration of the primary trade unions of AAMWU and REWU. The REWU alleges similar acts of interference in its communication dated 29 October 2003 aimed at getting primary-level organizations to leave the REWU and change their affiliation to the new industrial union and continuing efforts to discredit trade union leaders Mr. Bukhvostov and Mr. Fedynich through mass media. The REWU further states that proposals to discuss these acts of interference by the authorities and to express support for these two organizations at the FPB plenum were not supported by the FPB’s president.
38. 325. In its communication of 30 October 2003, the CDTU states that on 9 October 2003, the president, Mr. Yaroshuk, was not allowed to attend the meeting of the National Council for Labour and Social Issues. It further condemns the administrative detention of Mr. Yaroshuk on 18 September 2003. Finally, it adds that on 17 October 2003, Mr. Odynets, the lawyer of the CDTU, was also placed under administrative detention for five days for showing disrespect to the court.
39. 326. The AAMWU condemns in a communication of 31 October 2003 the sentencing of Mr. Bukhvostov to ten days’ administrative detention for carrying out a picket aimed at drawing the attention of the Belarusian society, the leadership of the country and the international community to the violation of trade union rights in Belarus.
40. 327. The ICFTU, in a communication dated 31 October 2003, expresses its deep concern over the sentencing of Mr. Bukhvostov to ten days’ administrative detention and other methods used both inside the FPB and outside to weaken Mr. Bukhvostov’s position and to further repress the voice of independent trade unions in Belarus. Another trade union official, Mr. Komlik of the REWU, was also reportedly detained in connection with Mr. Bukhvostov’s arrest but was subsequently released. Added to the ICFTU’s concern is the fragile state of health of Mr. Bukhvostov.
41. C. The Government’s further reply
42. 328. In its communication dated 11 September 2003, the Government expresses its interest in resolving Case No. 2090 and cooperating with the ILO. It indicates that the following comments were prepared in consultation with trade unions and employers’ organizations.
43. 329. As concerns Presidential Decree No. 2 respecting certain measures to regulate the activity of political parties, trade unions and other public organizations, the Government recalls that the Decree of 26 January 1999 was promulgated following the adoption of new civil and housing codes. The Decree provides that at least 500 founders from the majority of territorial and administrative and territorial units of the respective territory are needed for the establishment and activity of a republican (national) trade union and not less than 10 per cent of the total number of enterprise workers, but not less than ten persons. Only the last condition constitutes a requirement for the establishment of a trade union. The Government does not consider that 10 per cent is too high and indicates that this requirement concerns only the establishment of independent trade unions (and not the trade union units). The Government further indicates that since section 11 of the regulation on state registration sets out the particular cases where registration may be denied, the registration authorities cannot exercise any discretion in this regard. Moreover, when registration is denied, the decision of the registration authority can be appealed.
44. 330. To date, there has been no refusal to register a trade union; 20,197 primary-level organizations have been registered. There have only been 59 cases of refusal to register a primary-level organization since the promulgation of the Decree. The Government states that one of the reasons for refusal has been the non-respect of the requirement to provide a legal address. To improve the labour legislation, the Government is working with all interested bodies of the national administration: the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Industry and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Consultations are also being conducted with trade unions and employers’ associations.
45. 331. On the question of Presidential Decree No. 8, the Government reiterates its previous comments and states that this Decree does not hinder trade unions from receiving free foreign aid intended for their legal activities and that no cases of refusal of trade union applications for registration of free foreign aid or of misuse of aid have come to light.
46. 332. As concerns Presidential Decree No. 11, the Government indicates that in order to systematize standards (legislation) concerning public activities, the Law on gatherings, meetings, street processions, demonstrations and picketing was adopted on 7 August 2003 to amend the Law concerning public meetings, public marches, demonstrations and picketing. In any event, the Government states that since the promulgation of Decree No. 11, there has been no liquidation of trade unions as a result of violations of the established procedures for holding public demonstrations in Belarus.
47. 333. The Government further indicates that according to the Regulations on the National Council for Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI), a consultative body with equal participation of representatives of the Government, employers’ organizations and trade unions, the trade union representation in the council is based on proportional representation. The Government states that the members affiliated to the FPB trade unions are much greater in number than those affiliated to the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CTDU). Considering the number of trade union members of the CDTU (4,000), this organization could not aspire to be represented at the NCLSI. Nevertheless, one seat has been kept for the CDTU representative. The CDTU representative participated in the NCLSI meeting of 9 August 2002, but not in its last two meetings. Furthermore, tripartite consultative bodies are functioning in the regions of Belarus. Due to the fact that trade unions affiliated to the FPB represent 98 per cent of all trade union members in Belarus, these trade unions are mainly represented in regional councils. When possible, trade unions not affiliated to the FPB are also asked to participate in consultative bodies. This is the case, for example, of Novopolotsk coordination council of Vitebskiy district.
48. 334. As concerns the election of the FPB President, the Government indicates that it has once more examined the matter. As indicated in previous observations, the elections were conducted according to the unions’ own by-laws and there has been no violation of national law.
49. 335. On the question of the election of the Chairperson of the Agricultural Sector Workers’ Union (ASWU), the Government once again indicates that Mr. Yaroshuk was released from his post as Chairperson of the National Committee of the Union at the Committee’s plenary sitting on 10 September 2002 with 34 persons voting for, one against and five abstentions. Since the union by-laws did not provide for the procedure of election of the chairperson or other trade union leaders in between the congresses, during this plenum, the question of interpretation of the trade union by-laws was also examined. The plenum decided that, according to normal practice, the election and destitution of the Chairperson of the National Committee of the Union should be decided by the National Committee itself (43 persons voted for such an interpretation while two voted against). Since that time, Mr. Naumchik was elected Chairperson of the Committee on 26 March 2003 during the plenary of the Committee.
50. 336. As concerns the elections in trade unions of the Brest District, the Government once again states that Mr. Mironchik was released from his post as Chairperson of the Brest District Trade Unions’ Association by a general meeting of the association and that Mr. Kovsh was released from his post as Chairperson of the Brest District Committee of the Trade Union of Education and Science Workers at his own request, following his retirement.
51. 337. As for the question of the establishment of the Minsk city trade union organization of employees of the cultural sphere, the Government indicates that Mr. Mamonko is a chairperson of one of the trade union units of the Minsk district regional organization of employees of the cultural sphere and not of an independent trade union. Presently, many industrial trade union organizations have district and Minsk city organizations in their structures. The decision to establish a unit belongs to the executive body of the trade union. The Minsk city trade union organization of employees of the cultural sphere was established by decision of the presidium of the National Committee of the trade union according to its by-laws. Mr. Mamonko participated in the work of the presidium, where he argued against the creation of the Minsk city trade union organization of employees of the cultural sphere. However, the members of the presidium did not support him. The Government points out that the establishment of the Minsk city organization did not result in the liquidation of the Minsk district organization, the president of which is still currently Mr. Mamonko. The Government supplies a copy of the decision of the presidium of the National Committee of Belarus Trade Union of Employees of the Cultural Sphere, as well as its organizational chart.
52. 338. On the question of the liquidation of the Belarusian Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers (BPAD), the Government states that the Ministry of Justice had registered this trade union as a national trade union. Presidential Decree No. 2 provides for a minimum membership requirement of 500 workers to establish a national trade union. Since its registration, the membership of BPAD has declined. In February 2003, there were only 282 members of the trade union. In the meantime, the trade union continued to exercise its activities as a national trade union. Considering this fact and in order to comply with the legislation, the Office of the Prosecutor-General of the Republic of Belarus advised the trade union, on 12 March 2003, to reconsider its status and to register as a trade union at a different level, according to its membership and sphere of activity. On 8 April 2003, the President of BPAD rejected this suggestion. The Prosecutor-General consequently addressed the Supreme Court with a request to stop the activities of the said trade union, in accordance with section 5 of the Law on Trade Unions. On 7 August 2003, the Supreme Court decided to stop the activity of the BPAD. The Government supplies the court ruling in this case.
53. 339. As regards the question of the establishment of the trade union of industrial workers, the Government states that in 2000 the suggestion to create a Belarusian trade union of industrial workers had already been made by a number of industrial trade unions, which at that time concluded wage agreements with the Ministry of Industry. This suggestion was supported by the then President of the FPB, Mr. Goncharik. Nor were the leaders of industrial trade unions, including Mr. Bukhvostov and Mr. Fedynich, against this proposal. However, at that time, the leaders of the industrial trade unions could not work out a common position on the mechanism of association. The National Industrial Trade Union of Automobile and Appliance Machinery Workers played the most active role in the creation of the new union. The Belarusian Industrial Association was established on 28 May 2003 with affiliation from this trade union, as well as from other trade unions not affiliated to other national industrial unions, such as the trade unions of the Minsk Automobile Plant, AO “Atlant”, the Belarusian Metallurgical Plant of Jlobin, the regional trade union “Integral” and others.
54. 340. Furthermore, on the question of the establishment of the regional trade union of electronics workers “Integral”, the Government reiterates its previous points made in this respect as well as on the question of disaffiliation of the primary trade union organization at the “Tsvetotron” plant in Brest from the branch union representing workers in the radio?electronics industry. The Government once again indicates that the reason given for the disaffiliation was a disagreement between the primary union organization and the branch union regarding the contributions to the union’s republic-level committee. Now, the regional trade union of electronic workers “Integral” is affiliated to the newly established Belarus Industrial Association.
55. 341. The Government reiterates its previous comments as concerns the dismissals of Mr. Evmenov, Mr. Bourgov and Mr. Evgenov. The Government once again indicates that Mr. Evmenov was not dismissed for failure to organize “subbotnik” in April 1999 but for failure to assume the responsibilities imposed on him by his labour contract. The Government states that these workers were dismissed entirely in accordance with the legislation, and this fact has been confirmed on a number of occasions by the courts. The Government also indicates that according to the investigation by the labour inspectorate, Mr. Evmenov was hired by the DU KPP “Rayservice” of Ossipovichi for a short-term contract. At the end of his contract, Mr. Evmenov was dismissed.
56. 342. The Government also refers to its previous replies where it drew attention to the lack of evidence to support allegations that members of the Belarusian Free Trade Union at the “Grodno Khimvolokno” production association and at the “Zenith” plant in Mogilev had been threatened with dismissal. According to the Government, no workers have been dismissed at these plants, with the exception of Mr. Popov (dismissed on 2 September 2002 due to staff reductions) and of Mr. Tcherney, the President of the primary trade union of the Belarusian Free Trade Union, due to the expiration of his contract. As concerns Mr. Marinich, the former President of the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers at the Minsk Automobile Plant, the Government indicates that he was hired by OOO “Tourtranse” for a two-month contract. At the end of this term, Mr. Marinich was not fired and still works for the said enterprise. The Government submits documents to support this information.

D. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 343. The Committee notes that the pending and new allegations in this case concern: interference by government authorities with trade union activities and elections, in particular as concerns the presidency of the trade union federation and subsequent favouritism; continuing interference in the internal affairs of the REWU, AAMWU, CDTU and the Minsk Regional Trade Union Organization of Employees of the Cultural Sphere (MRTUECS) and the ultimate dissolution of BPAD by order of the Supreme Court; detention of the CDTU Chairperson for exercising freedom of expression in defence of trade union rights; administrative detentions of the CDTU lawyer and of the president of the AAMWU; dismissals, and further blacklisting for employment of Mr. Evgenov, Mr. Evmenov and Mr. Bourgov; obstacles to trade union registration in Presidential Decree No. 2 and the non-registration of the primary-level organizations of the BFTU; and interference in the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their activities by virtue of Presidential Decrees Nos. 8 and 11.
2. 344. The Committee takes note of the report of the ILO mission undertaken in Belarus from 8 to 11 September 2003 and wishes to thank the mission for its report which has provided important information on the context of the trade union movement in the country and the varying views on how this movement should function.
3. 345. As concerns the recommendation that an independent investigation be conducted in respect of a number of trade union elections in the country, the Committee must observe with deep regret that, despite advice from the mission on steps to be taken for the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations, the latest reply from the Government continues to refer only to the question of compliance with by-laws and relevant legislation and still does not address any of the issues related to the circumstances surrounding these elections and the impact of government interference in this process. Moreover, the Government has still not provided any indication as to the steps that might be envisaged to institute independent investigations into these matters, despite the fact that the Committee has been requesting the Government to do so since its meeting in November 2002 [see 329th Report, paras. 269-275].
4. 346. The Committee takes due note of the indications made by the Government to the ILO mission that, beyond reviewing the correct conduct of the procedure for elections, there is little the Government can do to interfere in an internal conflict within the trade union movement. The Committee wishes to recall, however, that while it has no competence to examine the merits of disputes within the various tendencies of a trade union movement, a complaint against another organization, if couched in sufficiently precise terms to be capable of examination on its merits, may bring the government of the country concerned into question – for example, if the acts of the organization complained against are wrongfully supported by the government or are of a nature which the government is under a duty to prevent by virtue of its having ratified an international labour Convention [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 964]. In this case, the allegations concern not only the wrongful support by the Government of certain actions, but even the instigation by the Government of a certain number of attacks within the trade union movement.
5. 347. The Committee is obliged to note in this regard not only that no steps have been taken to investigate the allegations concerning government interference in the trade union election of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), the Agricultural Sector Workers’ Union (ASWU) and the two organizations in Brest, but that additional allegations have been made by the complainants in this case of continuing government interference in respect of their organizations. In particular, the Committee deplores the allegations from the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) and the Automobile and Agricultural Machinery Workers’ Union (AAMWU) that the Chairperson of the FPB had made attempts to remove them as leaders of these unions at the end of 2002 because of their association with this complaint. Once these attempts had failed, the REWU and the AAMWU further allege that the President of Belarus issued instructions in March 2003 for the Minister of Industry to take the necessary measures to deal with the problem posed by these two chairpersons. The Committee notes with regret that the Government provides no information concerning these instructions, not even to deny their existence. The Committee emphasizes the importance it attaches to the principle that no person should suffer prejudice of any kind for bringing a complaint to the ILO and requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure respect for this principle.
6. 348. The complainants go on to provide details of the efforts made by the Deputy Minister of Industry, following these instructions, to place pressure on plant directors and union members to leave the REWU and the AAMWU and to affiliate to the newly created Belarus Industrial Association (BIA). In this respect, the Committee observes that the BIA is made up of certain unions which had broken off from the REWU and the AAMWU and about which allegations of interference had been made earlier, resulting in the Committee requesting an independent investigation, in particular into the creation of a new regional trade union for workers at the “Integral” research and production association and the disaffiliation of the primary trade union organization at the “Tsvetotron” plant in Brest from the REWU [see 325th Report, paras. 169-171]. As regards these break-off unions, the Government continues to refer in its latest reply to the free choice of workers to form new trade unions, yet it still has not indicated any measures envisaged to establish an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding this choice, which had even been called into question at the time by the district prosecutor [see 325th Report, para. 170].
7. 349. The Committee must note also the further allegations of interference made by the Belarusian Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers (BPAD) and the information provided by the Chairperson of the Minsk Regional Trade Union Committee of Employees in the Cultural Sphere (MRTUECS) to the ILO mission. The Committee recalls in this respect that it had requested the Government in its previous recommendation to institute independent investigations into these allegations, take the necessary measures to ensure that these organizations were protected from any further interference and redress any consequences of such interference [see 331st Report, paras. 161 and 162]. Despite this request, the BPAD has since been dissolved by the Supreme Court. The Government’s reply makes no indication that measures were taken for an independent investigation into BPAD’s allegations that their members were being harassed to resign from the union, but simply relates that the membership of the union had declined to a point where it was no longer representative at the national level.
8. 350. The Committee must observe with particular consternation that no efforts appear to have been made either by the Prosecutor-General who requested their dissolution, or by the Supreme Court who ordered it, to investigate the BPAD’s allegations that members were leaving the organization only because of the pressure and intimidation placed upon them by their employer and the Chairperson of the State Committee on Aviation. In this respect, the Committee must deplore the terms of the letter of the Chairperson of the State Committee on Aviation to the Minister of Justice in July 2003, which call into question the very fundamental right to form free and independent trade unions and links the request for the dissolution of the BPAD to demands made by the President of Belarus.
9. 351. In the light of the above, the Committee is regrettably obliged to conclude that the Government has had no real intention to take the necessary measures to have these extremely serious allegations investigated by independent persons having the confidence of all the parties concerned. The Committee further notes with great concern that, according to the complainants, government interference from the highest levels continue.
10. 352. In these circumstances, the Committee can only once again urge the Government to take the necessary steps immediately to establish independent investigations, having the confidence of all parties concerned, into the allegations of interference surrounding the elections of the FPB, of the ASWU, the Brest Regional Association of Trade Unions and the Brest Regional Committee of Science and Education Unions, as well as into the interference aimed at weakening the representation of the REWU, the AAMWU, the BPAD and the MRTUECS, with the aim of rectifying all effects of this interference. The Committee further stresses that all necessary steps must be taken immediately at the highest level to call a halt to the continuing pressure and interference by various ministries and enterprise directors on the leaders and members of the REWU, the AAMWU, the BPAD and the MRTUECS.
11. 353. As concerns its previous request for information on the extent to which alternative organizations representing workers, such as those present in the complaint, participated in the various national tripartite bodies, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that a seat on the National Council for Labour and Social Issues (NCLSI) is held for the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU), despite the fact that the Congress only represents 4,000 members. The Committee notes, on the other hand, that according to the Government’s reply, the CDTU has not participated in the NCLSI since August 2002. From the impressions given by the mission report, it would seem that the complainants consider that interference in the internal affairs of trade unions has reached a point where there can be little confidence between the complainant organizations, the Government and the main Federation, the FPB. The Committee further notes with regret the recent allegations made by the CDTU to the effect that, despite the Government’s assurances, the president of the CDTU was not allowed to attend the NCLSI meeting on 9 October 2003. Recalling that the development of free and independent organizations and negotiation with all those involved in social dialogue is indispensable to enable a government to confront its social and economic problems and resolve them in the best interests of the workers and the nation [see Digest, op. cit., para. 24], the Committee urges the Government to ensure independent investigations into the numerous allegations of interference, including the recent exclusion of the CDTU from the NCLSI and to rectify all consequences of such interference.
12. 354. The Committee further notes with deep regret that, just one week after the ILO mission in September, the Chairperson of the CDTU was sentenced to ten days’ administrative detention for “showing disrespect for the Supreme Court” because he had published a newspaper article criticizing the Supreme Court ruling that dissolved the BPAD. The Committee recalls that the right to express opinions through the press or otherwise is an essential aspect of trade union rights. Moreover, the detention of trade union leaders or members for reasons connected with their activities in defence of the interests of workers constitutes a serious interference with civil liberties in general and with trade union rights in particular [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 153 and 71]. The Committee calls upon the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that trade union leaders may fully exercise their freedom of expression in the future, without fear of reprisal.
13. 355. Following Mr. Yaroshuk’s detention, the Committee is further obliged to note with deep regret and concern that recourse to administrative detention in respect of trade unionists and leaders is becoming more frequent. It condemns in this respect the ten-day detention of Mr. Bukhvostov, president of the AAMWU, on 31 October 2003 and the five-day detention of Mr. Odynets, lawyer of the CDTU, on 17 October 2003. The Committee recalls that, while persons engaged in trade union activities or holding trade union office cannot claim immunity in respect of the ordinary criminal law, trade union activities should not in themselves be used by the public authorities as a pretext for the arbitrary arrest or detention of trade unionists. Moreover, the arrest of trade unionists may create an atmosphere of intimidation and fear prejudicial to the normal development of trade union activities. [See Digest, op. cit., paras. 83 and 76.] The Committee therefore urges the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure in the future that trade unionists will not be subjected to detention for the exercise of their fundamental rights of freedom of association.
14. 356. As concerns the dismissal of the three trade union leaders Mr. Evgenov, Mr. Evmenov and Mr. Bourgov, the Committee notes yet again with regret that the Government provides no additional information on the measures taken to ensure their reinstatement and limits itself to stating that their dismissals were not related to the question of the “subbotnik” (unpaid voluntary labour), but rather to failure to assume their contractual responsibilities. The Committee must first recall that its examination of this question goes back to 2001 wherein it noted that Mr. Bourgov and Mr. Evmenov were dismissed for “absenteeism” related to their failure to work on a non-work day [see 325th Report, paras. 175 and 176]. As for the recent allegations of the continued harassment of Mr. Evmenov in respect of his employment opportunities, the Committee notes that the Government limits itself to stating that he had a short-term contract and therefore it was normal that his contract would come to an end. The Government does not appear to have actually investigated the allegations of anti-union discrimination and blacklisting of these trade union leaders. The Committee must therefore once again urge the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that Mr. Evgenov, Mr. Evmenov and Mr. Bourgov are reinstated in their posts with full compensation for any lost wages and benefits.
15. 357. As concerns Presidential Decree No. 2 (regulation of activity of political parties, trade unions and other public associations), No. 8 (arrangements for the receipt of foreign gratuitous aid) and No. 11 (procedure for holding assemblies, rallies, street marches and other mass demonstrations), the Committee notes with regret that the Government has limited itself to stating that over 20,000 primary-level trade unions have been registered, no requests to receive foreign financial aid have been refused and that no trade union has been dissolved as a result of the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 11. As to this last Decree, the Government further refers to the compilation of relevant standards into the Law concerning public meetings, public marches, demonstrations and picketing, which was adopted on 7 August 2003. The Committee notes with extreme regret that, rather than using this opportunity to amend the paragraphs emanating from Presidential Decree No. 11 that had provided for disproportionate sanctions for violation of its measures, such as the dissolution of trade unions, all the previous restrictions on mass meetings, demonstrations and picketing remain, thus maintaining significant restrictions on the right of workers’ and employer’s organizations to organize their activities and to give expression to their positions on socio?economic policy considerations affecting them. In fact, while the Presidential Decree had provided that these organizations may be dissolved upon repeated violation of its provisions when holding assemblies or carrying out demonstrations, the new law refers to the sanction of dissolution for a single violation (section 15). The Committee therefore urges the Government to amend the new law, as well as Presidential Decree No. 11 if it is still in force, so as to ensure that restrictions on meetings, demonstrations and pickets are limited to cases where the action ceases to be peaceful or results in a serious disturbance of public order and so that any sanctions imposed will not be disproportionate to the violation incurred, and in particular to eliminate all references to the dissolution of trade unions.
16. 358. Recalling its previous recommendations concerning the restrictions placed on the activities of workers’ and employers’ organizations by Presidential Decree No. 8, which requires previous authorization for receipt of foreign gratuitous aid, the use of which is prohibited for carrying out public meetings, demonstrations, strikes and disseminating campaign material [see 325th Report, para. 167], the Committee once again urges the Government to amend this Decree so that workers’ and employers’ organizations may benefit freely, and without previous authorization, from the assistance that might be provided by international organizations for activities compatible with freedom of association.
17. 359. As concerns Presidential Decree No. 2, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures either to amend the Decree in line with its previous recommendations [see 324th Report, para. 201], or to revoke it entirely, at least as far as workers’ and employers’ organizations are concerned, so that these organizations are not hindered in their right to form organizations of their own choosing, without previous authorization. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to register the primary-level organizations affiliated to the Belarusian Free Trade Unions listed in the BFTU communication of 10 September 2003 without delay.
18. * * *
19. 360. Overall, the Committee deeply regrets that it has not been able to observe any steps on the part of the Government to implement its recommendations in respect of the very serious matters in this case, despite the fact that two ILO missions have been carried out in the country to assist the Government in this regard. In light of its examination of this case since 2001, the Committee considers that serious attacks have been, and continue to be, made on all attempts to maintain a free and independent trade union movement in the country. The Committee urges the Government to take serious steps to implement its recommendations and to take all appropriate measures to guarantee that, irrespective of trade union affiliation, trade union rights can be exercised in normal conditions with respect for basic human rights and in a climate free of violence, pressure, fear and threats of any kind.
20. 361. In these circumstances, and taking into account the complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution submitted by a number of Workers’ delegates to the 91st Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2003, the Committee recommends that the Governing Body refer the examination of all the pending allegations in this case, along with the complaint submitted in June, to a commission of inquiry.

Z. ANNEX

• Appendix I
• Report of the ILO mission to Belarus
  8. (8-11 September 2003)
• Case No. 2090
• I. Introduction
• The Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) has examined the complaint concerning allegations of trade union rights’ violations in Belarus (Case No. 2090) since March 2001. By a letter dated 22 May 2003, the Minister of Labour and Social Protection of Belarus requested the ILO to visit Minsk in order to carry out consultations concerning this case. By a communication dated 18 June 2003, the Chairperson of the Workers’ group and 13 other Workers’ delegates to the 91st Session of the International Labour Conference presented a complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution against the Government of Belarus for non-observance of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 to the Secretary-General of the Conference. When discussing Case No. 2090 during the adoption of the report of the CFA at the 287th Session of the Governing Body (June 2003), the Chairperson of the Workers’ group requested the Office to prepare the documents for the establishment of a commission of inquiry for the 288th Session of the Governing Body in November 2003. In the meantime, he indicated to the Government that the decision to appoint a commission of inquiry had not yet been taken and that the time until this next Governing Body session was available for the Government to take the necessary measures to implement the CFA’s recommendations.
• In light of the above, the Executive Director for Standards and Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, Mr. Kari Tapiola, replied to the Government’s May request in a communication dated 8 July 2003 specifying that the mandate of the mission would be to discuss the issues raised in the case and possible measures to be taken in reply to the CFA’s recommendations. Joined to the letter was a list of points for discussion on the basis of the CFA’s recommendations in June 2003. This mission was carried out by Mr. Tapiola and Ms. Karen Curtis, Head of Section, Freedom of Association Branch from 8?11 September.
• II. Conduct of the mission
• The mission had meetings with the following government officials and their aides: Vice Prime Minister; Minister of Justice; Minister of Foreign Affairs; First Deputy Minister of Labour; Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration; Deputy Minister of Industry; and the Chairman of the State Committee on Aviation (see the appendix for a list and names of persons met). The mission also met with the chairperson and judges of the Constitutional Court.
• The mission met with the complainants in this case and other concerned organizations, including: the Chairperson and branch members of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB); officers of the following complainant branch-level affiliates, Belarus Automobile and Agricultural Machinery Workers’ Union (AAMWU) and the Belarus Radio and Electronics Workers’ Union (REWU); officers of the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU); the Chairperson of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU); officers of the Belarusian Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers (BPAD) and the Chairperson of the Minsk Regional Trade Union of Employees from the Cultural Sphere (MRUECS). The mission also met with the two employers’ confederations: The Byelorussian Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers named after Prof. M. Kouniavski and the Byelorussian Confederation of Industrialists and Businessmen (see the appendix for a list and names of persons met).
• Finally, the mission had a general background meeting with the head of the mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Mr. Heyken.
• III. Information obtained during the mission
• The mission would like to state at the outset that, with the exception of the Minister of Labour who was unfortunately ill at the time of the mission, the high level and diversity of the government officials met with demonstrated that the Government was paying particular attention to the discussions taking place in various ILO bodies with respect to Belarus. Indeed, the mission had been told that the level of understanding of international labour standards in the Council of Ministers had been raised greatly over the last year. In particular, the Minister of Foreign Affairs had stated that the Government’s attention to the issues before the ILO had been heightened and that there was a great deal of communication between the different ministries in this regard. The necessary measures were taken to ensure that all officials with whom the mission had requested meetings were made available.
• Government interference in trade union elections
• and internal affairs
• While this issue was raised initially in the complaints with reference to Instructions from the Head of the Presidential Administration of 11 February 2000 to interfere in the elections of branch trade unions, their congresses and the Congress of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB), the allegations now describe developments in the dynamics of such interference. The allegations over the last year have referred to a successful attempt by the Government to bring the FPB under its control and to use its leadership as an arm of political power and policy. In examining such allegations, it is necessary to make a distinction between those issues which might be purely internal conflict within the trade union movement itself and those where the conflict involves direct participation by government and management representatives in what should be the independent decision-making of trade union organizations. Such involvement for the purpose of influencing a decision may either be instigated by state authorities or solicited by one side of a conflict, or both. The mandate of the mission, however, was not to make judgments on these matters, but rather to provide the CFA with elements that might help it to assess the situation better.
• At the initial meeting at the Ministry of Labour, it was reiterated that the July 2002 election of the Chairperson of the FPB was totally legitimate and in conformity with the federation’s by-laws and national legislation. In view of the country’ history, it was not surprising to have the former deputy head of the Presidential Administration as leader of the federation. The Deputy Minister stated that this aspect of the complaint was emotional and the matter no longer held any importance.
• The questions surrounding his election and his role in the trade union movement, as well as his relationship with the Radio and Electronic Workers’ Union (REWU) and the Automobile and Agricultural Machinery Workers’ Union (AAMWU), were also raised with the Chairperson of the FPB, Mr. Kozik. He stated that there were minor problems within the trade union movement which should normalize shortly. He stated that he was not interested in conflict but rather focused his organization on the improvement of workers’ standards of living. He recalled all the advances he had gained since he came into office, including the prompt restoration of check-off facilities for all unions. On this issue, he had written a letter to the authorities asking for restoration of the check-off facilities and received a favourable reply. The process had taken some months, as he also had to intervene with the National Bank. He also listed other achievements, including: the reconvening of the National Tripartite Council on Social and Labour Affairs and the adoption of a government resolution returning to trade unions the role of the labour inspectorate. He stated that social partnership should be utilized to strengthen unity rather than obstruct it. Mr. Kozik asked not to be blamed for succeeding and suggested that all should forget the problems of the past. He indicated that he had suggested to the Chairperson of the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU), which he stated only had 4,000 members, that they put their efforts together. The membership of the federation was 4 million.
• Mr. Kozik categorically denied any government interference in the election process of the federation and declared that he had been duly elected. The former Chairperson, Mr. Vitko, had preferred taking up a post in the Government embassy in Bulgaria. Mr. Kozik recalled that he has been a long-standing trade union member and has been involved in trade union activity for eight years. As for the recent creation of the Belarus Industrial Association (BIA), Mr. Kozik stated that this was aimed at regaining the 150,000 members that some branch unions had lost over the past few years. While he tried to persuade these members to rejoin their branch unions, he was unsuccessful and therefore decided that the best thing for the federation was to get these members back by creating a new industrial branch union. While some might feel threatened with this, he emphasized that this was done in accordance with relevant by-laws and everyone should have the right to choose.
• When asked whether he was aware that the REWU had been complaining about interference by the Ministry of Industry in its internal affairs, Mr. Kozik stated that he had only been informed about this one week prior to the mission by a group of members of the union. He said, in fact, that deputy ministers who are members of a union could well make recommendations at union meetings. He stated that he tried to meet with the Deputy Minister of Industry whose name had been specifically mentioned in this regard, but he was unwell. He then met with the Minister of Industry who categorically denied that there had been any interference. In Mr. Kozik’s opinion, this was simply a matter of internal trade union affairs.
• On the question of the allegations surrounding the Minsk Regional Trade Union of Employees of the Cultural Sphere (MRTUECS), Mr. Kozik stated that this was only an internal structural problem and no longer existed. As proof of his good intentions to solve trade union problems where they exist, Mr. Kozik handed the mission a copy of a letter he had sent to the Chairperson of the Customs Committee protesting against efforts made to deny workers the right to be union members.
• The mission was then invited to a meeting of leaders and activists from the various branch unions of the FPB. Neither the Chairperson of the REWU nor of the AAMWU were at this meeting and later they informed the mission that while they had not been invited by the FPB, despite their affiliation, they did try to attend but were barred at the door. The Chairperson of the Belarusian Trade Union of Employees in the Cultural Sphere, of which the MRTUECS is a part, gave the first presentation. He stated that the problems, which had existed for MRTUECS, did not have anything to do with government interference but were rather simply related to structural issues of representation. He added that Mr. Mamonko who had been involved in the complaint to the ILO was still in his position as Chairperson of MRTUECS and all was now resolved. The mission, however, subsequently met with Mr. Mamonko who stated that many efforts were still being made by the public authorities to interfere in his union’s internal affairs. He called these efforts an example of interference at the highest level, including the Presidential Administration, the Ministry of Culture, and the Minsk Executive Committee. He had not been invited to present his position at the meeting that the FPB held with the mission.
• The Chairperson of the BIA took the floor at the FPB branch meeting and explained the circumstances surrounding the creation of the BIA. He recalled that efforts had actually been made by the REWU and the AAMWU to do something similar two years ago. He stated that his organization was attractive to workers as, in combining several structures, it had been able to reduce expenditure and consequently trade union dues. The BIA was made up of the organizations that had split off from the REWU and AAMWU in the past couple of years, including Integral and the National Union of Machine and Tool Workers, and the chairperson himself was from the Integral Amalgamation (Integral had been raised in initial complaints of government interference to diminish the REWU’s membership base).
• The alleged government interference in trade union affairs had also been raised with the Deputy Minister of Industry who had been cited in recent complaints as using his influence and pressure to encourage workers to quit the REWU and join the newly established BIA. He stated that there was nothing in the legislation that prohibited the management and directors of enterprises, or officials from respective ministries, from being members of unions in their branches and participating in union activities. He himself was a member of the REWU and considered himself still to be a member although he had received a letter indicating that his expulsion from the union was on the agenda. It was natural and desirable that all be involved in matters which affected them. This was particularly the case when issues concerning tariff agreements were to be discussed, given that the respective ministries are also parties to these agreements. On the other hand, he stated that he did not attend meetings when he was not invited to do so and which concerned purely trade union affairs.
• He denied the allegations that he had brought pressure to bear on workers to resign from the REWU. While he admitted to being at certain of the workplaces to which the complainant had referred, he stated that this was part of his job and that he could not avoid answering questions or providing his own opinion if workers were to ask him about the newly created industrial branch union. He stated that the creation of the BIA was simply an expression of the trade union movement’s need and desire to unite, and the REWU and the AAMWU had envisaged such unification a few years ago.
• He continued to accept the REWU as a counterpart in negotiations and stated that he was prepared to discuss with them concerning future agreements. He emphasized that, under the current legislation, the Ministry had to negotiate with all registered unions. Related to the question of bargaining, the Deputy Minister of Labour had stated in the initial meeting with the mission that the Minister of Industry had raised concern about the present context for collective bargaining in which all unions have this right and stated that the Government was looking at amending the Labour Code to require a certain degree of representativeness for collective bargaining purposes. Concern for the need to amend the legislation in this respect was also expressed at the meeting in the Ministry of Justice.
• The Chairperson of the REWU, for his part, indicated that the pressure and interference on the part of government authorities was continuing and even getting worse. Moreover, he had been slandered by Mr. Kozik who stated that he had called for economic sanctions against the country at the ILO Conference but he had not been able to bring Mr. Kozik to court yet for slander due to procedural obstacles. The state newspaper with wide distribution refused to publish his statement at the Conference. He referred to the minutes of the meeting in the ideological department where the President, supported by Mr. Kozik, called for the removal of himself and the Chairperson of the AAMWU within two months, although this deadline had since been extended. He doubted the sincerity of Mr. Kozik’s intervention with the Deputy Minister of Industry and added that Mr. Kozik had been put in a position where he had to do something. He believes that Mr. Kozik has been placed in the trade union movement only to ensure a vote on a referendum to extend the number of presidential mandates. The members of the FPB plenum are gradually being replaced with people coming from the Government. These thoughts were echoed by other complainant organizations.
• The AAMWU Chairperson emphasized that he would have expected, at the very least, that the Government would have suspended the harassment and the pressure while the ILO mission was in the country; regrettably this had not been the case. He referred to continuing efforts to convene meetings at various plants to induce local member organizations to decide to leave his branch union, although these attempts were carried out in a manner contrary to the union by-laws. He was regularly denied access to these plants, or even to their immediate vicinity, to speak to the union members, and the plant directors would refuse to meet him. He had printed information for the workers that the directors also refused to have disseminated. In his opinion, none of the CFA’s recommendations had been implemented.
• While observing that more and more people were showing the courage to give testimony about the various acts of harassment and emphasizing that his organization would remain independent, he expressed the fear that little by little the Government would be successful in whittling away at the independent trade union movement until it could claim that they no longer represented the workers. In this respect, he added that it was impossible to publish the CFA’s recommendations in the state-owned newspapers which had the widest distribution and yet it was essential that the public be made aware of this case.
• The Chairperson of the Agricultural Sector Workers’ Union (ASWU) at the FPB branch meeting (again where allegations from 2002 refer to government interference in elections) echoed many of the participants in this FPB meeting that now that Mr. Kozik has taken up the presidency, the dialogue with the Government is more positive and important issues are being resolved. He stated that demands should be realistic. After the meeting he requested the mission to resolve the issue that had been raised concerning the ASWU 2002 elections. He provided the mission with the protocol minutes from the meeting that relinquished Mr. Yaroshuk from his post as chairperson, stating that this was proof that this was done in accordance with applicable rules. The mission noted that the Minister of Agriculture had been the second speaker on this agenda item and queried whether it was appropriate for a minister to state his position to union members concerning their leadership. The current chairperson, as well as all government officials similarly queried, stated that this was perfectly normal, always worked this way and recalled that ministers were most often members of their respective branch unions.
• Mr. Yaroshuk, who has now been elected Chairperson of the CDTU, was more concerned with the tasks ahead of him in building the democratic trade union movement than discussing this election, which he now considered being part of his past. He did point out however that beyond the concerns of government interference, the intervention of the Minister at the plenum meeting was actually even against the by-laws as he was not a member of the national committee. Other elements of violation of the ASWU statute were raised in allegations made in this case last year. He did state, however, that he was experiencing ongoing harassment from the public authorities in his present position. In particular, he referred to the public prosecutor who had been threatening him about a number of articles he had published in the independent press. (On 18 September, a week after the mission left Belarus, Mr. Yaroshuk was condemned to ten days in prison, with immediate effect, for the article published on 21 August 2003, in the Narodnaya Volya paper concerning the dissolution of the Air-Traffic Controllers’ Union.)
• The officials of the Belarusian Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers (BPAD), the most recent complainant to join the complaint alleging that state and local authorities were acting to promote the union’s dissolution, informed the mission that the BPAD had been dissolved by the Supreme Court in August 2003 on the grounds that they had insufficient membership to be registered as a national-level trade union (only national-level unions – at least 500 members – can negotiate tariff agreements). They recalled that, up until these recent events, they had never had any problems, since their initial registration in 1991. They were duly re-registered as a union with national status under Presidential Decree No. 2 in 1999 and this had been confirmed even this year by the registration official in the Ministry of Justice. They had signed a wage agreement in June 2002 without any difficulties, and in August of that year had reached the height of their membership with 860 members.
• They presented the mission with a number of documents and testimonial evidence relative to their court case. These referred in particular to pressure placed on union members by the management and examination committees to resign from the union and a letter from the Chairperson of the State Committee on Aviation asking the Minister of Justice to ensure BPAD’s dissolution because free and independent unions disrupted the proper functioning of aviation. The registration official from the Ministry of Justice explained to the mission that trade unions couldn’t be dissolved by the Ministry. When there has been a legislative violation, the Ministry will issue a first warning and subsequently the prosecutor can go to the Supreme Court to request dissolution. He confirmed that his Ministry had never issued such a warning, not for the BPAD or for any other organization, but added that the problem could have been avoided if the BPAD had been more flexible and reorganized at a lower level. He stated that he was not in a position to determine whether there had been any pressure on union members to resign and confirmed that the Ministry of Justice had not at all been involved in the court case.
• The BPAD officers believe that this attack came after calls from the Chairperson of the FPB to the effect that there should be only one union movement in the country. The Chairperson of the State Committee on Aviation had thus obviously decided that all workers should merge into the Aviation Industry Workers’ Union, which was already affiliated to the FPB. The BPAD is now trying to get registration as an affiliate to the Democratic Transport Workers’ Union (affiliated to the CDTU), but fear that they will continue to meet up with obstacles in this regard, in particular the issue of legal address (see below under The right to organize and the process of registration). They added that, unexpectedly, all air traffic controllers’ without-limit-of-time contracts had now been converted into fixed-term employment contracts.
• The Chairperson of the State Committee on Aviation recalled to the mission that in the Soviet times there had only been one union in the aviation industry covering all workers and, consequently, there had been no difficulties at that time. The air traffic controllers’ union had been set up in 1991 and dealt directly at that time with the Cabinet of Ministers. According to him, they received national status at that time because they were not part of any particular ministry. In 1996, the State Committee on Aviation was created, and it negotiated with the union. He recalled that the Aviation Industry Workers’ Union represented 10,000 workers, while the BPAD only represented some 600 workers; their representative status thus was not comparable.
• As for the specific difficulties arising last year, he attributed these first to complaints made by air traffic controllers who were not members of the BPAD but stated that dues were being withheld from their pay. When asked, however, he confirmed that check-off was normally only possible after a specific request on the part of the worker, and he was not able to explain how there could be a discrepancy in this respect. This was further confirmed more generally by the Chairperson of the Constitutional Court who declared that the State ensured enforcement of the Court’s first judgment concerning check-off facilities, which emphasized the need to be accountable to the workers and ensure that they have all explicitly agreed to be members and have their dues retained at the source.
• More generally, the Aviation Committee Chairperson referred systematically to a conflict with the union over the financing of air traffic controllers’ travels to Europe to play football with meagre results. It was not clear how this related to the previous or present situation with the union, but it was apparently of great importance to the Chairperson. He recalled that strict discipline was necessary for the delicate work of air traffic controllers. As for the matter of transfer to fixed-term contracts, he stated that this was a change taking place everywhere and that it was necessary to ensure that there was a competitive basis for promotion. After having asserted that no one had been fired or transferred, he did acknowledge that there were some ten dismissals at the Centre for Flight Coordination, but that these had been reviewed by the Ministry of Labour, which had found no violation on the part of the employer and permitted the dismissals on the grounds of failure to perform duties in line with instructions. He stated that he would of course continue to negotiate with the union, but it had to be registered at another level.
• From the employers’ point of view on government interference, the Belarusian Union of Employers and Entrepreneurs (BUEE) recalled that the conflict between the Government and the unions had been at an impasse. It was not the Government’s task to define trade union strategy, however, as these were matters which should be resolved by the unions themselves. They expressed regret that the solution to this problem had been extreme and, while observing that the Government had exceeded its powers and functions, noted on the positive side that the relationship with the unions had now been re-established. They recalled that the National Council for Labour and Social Issues had stopped meeting altogether when the former Chairperson of the FPB became a presidential candidate. Now, with Mr. Kozik as FPB Chairperson, while the direction in the Council was not the same, at least they were meeting. The Belarusian Confederation of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (BCIE) considered that in the current context unions only followed government instructions. This was a problem for employers’ organizations, which needed a clear partner in negotiations, represented by strong and independent unions with a clear distinction between management/employer and worker.
• The Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration recalled numerous efforts on the part of the Government to ensure strong social protection to workers. He stated that trade union activities should be aimed at supporting the development of the State, but assured that no union received favourable treatment. He did admit however that the Government had a much more constructive partnership with the unions since the latest FPB elections. He asserted that there was no pressure from the State in respect of these elections, but rather that the change was due to the fact that union members were not happy with the absence of constructive dialogue with the Government. Referring to Mr. Kozik’s transfer to the trade union movement, he stated that any union member has the right to be elected. In passing he noted that he too was a member of the FPB. As for the alleged interference of ministers in trade union affairs, he recalled that they are also union members and need to be able to protect their own interests.
• At the meeting with the Deputy Head, the deputy Minister of Labour once again underlined the results of the investigation carried out by her Ministry into the allegations of government interference. When the mission explained that an independent investigation meant one that was not carried out under the aegis of the government, but rather independent persons who could be acceptable to all parties concerned, she stated that this was the first time she had received an explanation on what the CFA actually meant by independent investigations. She indicated that they would consider such a possibility but expressed doubt that the complainants would accept the results.
• The right to organize and the process of registration
• The need to amend Decree No. 2 regarding measures regulating the activity of political parties, trade unions and other social institutions has been raised by the CFA since its first examination of this case, which focused in particular on the obstacles posed for trade union registration by the issue of legal address and 10 per cent membership requirement of workers in the enterprise. This issue remained the major concern of the Belarusian Free Trade Union (BFTU), which presented the mission with a list of 31 first-level free trade union affiliates that had still not been able to obtain registration.
• It may also be of relevance that the Belarusian Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers (BPAD), which had recently been dissolved and was now trying to re-register as an affiliate to the Democratic Transport Workers’ Union raised the concern that they too might find themselves denied registration on the basis of the legal address requirement. When this was raised during the meeting with the Ministry of Justice, the officer in charge of registration recalled the article of the Law on Trade Unions which refers to the employer granting premises to trade unions and which has often been indicated by the complainants as the major obstacle for legal address, as the employer no longer has an obligation in this respect and will often refuse.
• While in the initial meeting with officials from the Ministry of Labour the mission was informed that attempts to simplify the registration process and amend Decree No. 2 were opposed by the employers’ organizations; both the BCIE and the BUEE denied voicing any such opposition. In fact, the BCIE underlined that they have always called for the total revocation of this decree, particularly as concerns workers’ and employers’ organizations for whom it should clearly not be applicable. It seems plausible that whatever opposition there might be from this side would have come rather directly from the managers of state enterprises who do not wish to accord premises and thus an address for registration.
• Presidential Decrees Nos. 8 and 11
• Initially in the meeting at the Ministry of Labour, the mission was simply told that these two presidential decrees (requiring prior authorization for foreign financial assistance to workers’ and employers’ organizations and broadly restricting and penalizing unlawful demonstrations, pickets and mass meetings) had not been used in any way to obstruct trade union affairs. No information was provided concerning any new laws or amendments in this respect. However, the mission was informed by the Chairperson of the Belarusian Trade Union of Public Service Workers at the FPB meeting that two draft laws dealing with these same subjects were well advanced in their consideration before the Parliament. When asked what effect such laws would have on the force of the presidential decrees, he told the mission that once the laws were adopted the decrees would no longer have any force.
• Subsequently, the mission raised the question of new draft legislation at its meeting at the Ministry of Justice. It was then told that the law on gatherings, meetings, street processions, demonstrations and picketing, consolidating a certain number of laws and/or decrees on the same subject, had actually come into force in June 2003, and a copy was provided. When asked about the effect of laws on presidential decrees, the officials of the Ministry of Justice did not give a clear reply but rather defended the normalcy of presidential decrees in themselves and recalled that they are subject to parliamentary approval anyway, and that many countries permitted the issuance of presidential decrees. The mission indicated in this respect that its concern was not the fact of legislating through presidential decree, but rather the contents of the two decrees in question and their relation to eventual legislation. Finally, when raising the query of supremacy in law between parliamentary laws and presidential decrees with the Chairperson of the Constitutional Court, the mission noted that even at this level no unequivocal reply was provided. While the chairperson expressed his personal opinion that a law subsequently adopted should take precedence over a presidential decree on the same subject, he added that there are theories on this question that refer to the supremacy of presidential decrees.
• It should be noted that none of the complainant organizations appeared to have been consulted about this new law. The chairperson of the REWU indicated that, in his opinion, it was tougher than the Presidential Decree in that there would no longer be a warning prior to dissolution of a union for violation of its provisions. In any event, the mission was obliged to point out in its final meeting at the Ministry of Labour that many of the provisions which the CFA had requested be amended in Presidential Decree No. 11 appeared at a first glance to be maintained in the new law. As for Presidential Decree No. 8, no draft text was available and no specific indications were given as to the types of changes, if any, might be made. The BCIE indicated that their position was also that this decree should be revoked.
• Other matters
• As concerns the CFA’s recommendations to take the necessary measures to reinstate Mr. Evgenov, Mr. Evmenov and Mr. Bourgov, the Deputy Minister of Labour reiterated the Government’s position that these individuals had not been dismissed for trade union activities or for having refused to work on a “subbotnik” (voluntary unpaid labour) and therefore their dismissals were legitimate. No indication was given of any intention to take measures for their reinstatement. As for the recent allegations relative to Mr. Evmenov (taken up in the CFA’s examination in June 2003), she stated that he had been hired as a replacement worker for a fixed-term contract and therefore it was normal that his employment had come to an end.
• The Chairperson of the AAMWU noted that reinstating these three individuals (one of whom was a member of his union) would have been the simplest of the recommendations to implement. In his opinion, no action was taken to this effect because it would have been seen as a victory for the free trade union movement.
• As regards the outstanding request for information concerning the threats of dismissal against members of the Free Trade Union at the Zenith Plant (dating back to 1999), the Deputy Minister of Labour stated that all those concerned are still employed except for one who was dismissed in 2002 for reasons of redundancy. As to the allegations on the part of the management, she stated that these were difficult to corroborate given the absence of any proof and the divergence of views on this.
• At the FPB branch union meeting, the Chairperson of the Trade Union at the Minsk Automobile Plant stated that Mr. Marinich, former Chairperson of the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers at the plant raised in the initial complaint because the employer had allegedly refused to rehire him, was now employed in another company as a locksmith. In a later meeting with the CDTU, the mission was told that the court had actually ruled that Mr. Marinich was to be reinstated but instead he was given less attractive employment in a different enterprise at a lower rate of pay.
• Both the BCIE and the BUEE considered that the ongoing absence of, and delay in adopting, legislation setting out the roles and functions of employers’ organizations was a major problem for their members and had an impact on many of the difficulties encountered today. The Deputy Minister of Labour handed a copy of the draft law on employers’ organizations to the mission with a request for ILO technical comments before placing it before the Parliament later this autumn.
• General considerations
• The Minister of Foreign Affairs referred more explicitly to the prospects of a commission of inquiry. He stated in no unclear terms that the Belarusian Government was less productive under explicit pressure and requested that this be taken into account in the establishment of a commission of inquiry. He considered that it would be more advisable, effective and wiser if the current dialogue were to continue as it is. The mission pointed out that it was important for the Government to ensure that there really was dialogue with all parties concerned, in particular the complainants, which did not seem to be the case now. In addition, continuing the dialogue should not result in the disappearance of these organizations. The Minister expressed his hope that the Minister of Labour would make sure that no organizations were eliminated and suggested that they would be guided by the representative strength of the unions concerned, rather than the ambition of individuals.
• The Deputy Prime Minister suggested that the National Council for Labour and Social Issues should play a significant role in ensuring that all voices were heard. He stated that the Government was sure it would find positive solutions for uniting the trade unions to the satisfaction of all.
• The head of the OSCE mission also referred to the public statement of the President of Belarus that the Chairpersons of the REWU and the AAMWU had to be removed within two months. He noted that the Government appeared to be following two diverging roads: one led to greater openness with the international community, the other appeared to lead to greater repression of civil liberties and freedoms within the country demonstrated by attacks on the press, journalists and NGOs. He stated that the new legislation concerning mass demonstrations was very damaging in this respect. In his opinion, it was not possible to disassociate these recent attacks from the issue of a referendum permitting a third term for the President.
• In the final meeting at the Ministry of Labour, the Deputy Minister emphasized that establishing a commission of inquiry would not help to develop social dialogue. She recalled the openness demonstrated by the Government to resolve the issues related to the case demonstrated by: (1) the invitation to the current mission to visit the country; (2) the level of the meetings scheduled for the mission; (3) the regular dialogue with the ILO, supplying of all reports requested, etc; and (4) the attendance of the Minister and officials at the Governing Body and Conference. She recalled that the CDTU also had a place on the National Council for Labour and Social Issues even though this could not at all be justified by the amount of its membership. Trade unions exist and are developing and wage agreements were still being concluded.
• As for the CFA’s recommendations, she insisted that the Government did not interfere in the development of trade unions and the elections of Mr. Kozik were legitimate from a formal point of view. As for any questions as to the spirit of the elections, that was a matter only within the competence of the union itself. She did not see what more the Government should, or could, do concerning the trade union situation. However, consideration would also be given to finding a way of establishing an independent investigation, although it was likely to be difficult to find agreement amongst the parties in this respect. As for the legislation, this should be amended taking into account the concerns of all, but this was a very long process.
• V. Conclusions
• While having taken due note of the high-level meetings scheduled and the repeated expressions of a desire to cooperate on the part of the Government, the mission notes with regret that despite long and detailed discussions, the government officials tended to repeat previously stated positions and explanations without indicating specific steps taken or envisaged to implement the CFA’s recommendations. The mission was regularly reminded that Belarus was a new State and as such had a lot of work to do to build up its own legal foundation, but that this necessarily took time, and any pressure in this regard would not be appreciated.
• The mission was concerned that on virtually all of the recommendations dating back to the CFA’s first examination in 2001, no satisfactory solutions had been reported. The simple recommendation for reinstatement in their jobs of three dismissed trade union officers had not been resolved, yet such a small effort could have been a sign of the Government’s readiness to react positively to the Committee’s recommendations. No progress has yet been made either in respect of Presidential Decree No. 2 despite earlier assurances from the Government that it would amend the decree. This was all the more disconcerting in light of the fact that not only the complainant organizations, but also the employers’ organizations consider that this decree is inappropriate for social partner organizations and an obstacle to their organizational rights.
• The CFA’s recommendations also concerned the amendment of two presidential decrees, which had restricted freedom of association rights. It was not at all obvious that the recently adopted law on gatherings, meetings, street processions, demonstrations and picketing had, in fact, resolved the issues relating to demonstrations and mass meetings in a satisfactory manner. The law did not seem to be well known, as hardly any reference to it was made in different discussions until, upon a direct question by the mission, a copy of it was provided in the meeting with the Minister of Justice. Furthermore, it was not evident that a new law would, in fact, override a presidential decree. There seems to be a considerable degree of confusion on the relationship, and potential conflict between a presidential decree and a law.
• No independent inquiry had so far been initiated following on the CFA recommendations to establish independent investigations, having the confidence of all parties concerned, into the allegations of government interference in the FPB, ASWU and other elections, although material related to trade union elections had previously been transmitted to the ILO. Further material was given to the mission. This material by and large covered the election process itself instead of the general circumstances in which the elections took place. It is to be noted that while elections may have been formally conducted according to existing rules, the allegations were of a broader nature, as they concentrated on interference in order to achieve a certain election result. This process had involved the presence and active participation of government authorities and managers at different meetings of the trade unions.
• In fact, it appears that the participation of government authorities, including ministers and deputy ministers, as well as managers of state enterprises seems to be a current practice. While it is understandable that such interaction between the trade unions, management and authorities often takes place for the purpose of discussing economic questions or assessing collective bargaining outcomes, there remains, regrettably, a wide scope for either government authorities or managers pressuring the members of trade unions or, indeed, for soliciting the interventions of the authorities or managers in order to influence the outcome of an election or decisions by workers on joining or leaving trade union bodies.
• One example of the kind of interaction was the decision by the Plenum of the Agricultural Sector Workers’ Union to remove Mr. Yaroshuk from his post of President, as one of the first speakers on the relevant agenda item had been the Minister of Agriculture. (The Protocol was given to the mission as evidence that decisions had been taken legally.) There is, in fact, a considerable potential for confusion, and misuse, which is created by the still unclear state of labour – management relations due to the slow transition process from old trade union structures into ones which make the distinction between trade unions and management, as well as government, and which can ensure that there is no interference by any side in the internal affairs of others.
• In this context, it is of particular concern that the highest authority of the country has reportedly called for measures for the removal of two trade union leaders from their positions. On an earlier occasion, in 2000, in the context of allegations on orders by the Presidential Administration for interference in internal matters of the trade unions – and in particular the trade union elections of precisely the same organizations that are at issue today – an ILO mission was assured that presidential instructions for such interference were no longer operational.
• In the absence of an independent inquiry, and moves to set up such an inquiry, the mission felt obliged to note to the authorities that the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association were addressed to the Government which itself has the responsibility for following them up. To implement these recommendations, the Government could, in the view of the mission, take the initiative to negotiate with all parties directly concerned about the way in which such an investigation could be initiated and carried out. The process should enjoy the full confidence of all concerned. It should go without saying that any measures of interference should cease with immediate effect once such a process was negotiated and under way. Such a process must not be used to veil attempts to weaken and eliminate the complainant organizations in this case.
• (Signed) Kari TapiolaKaren Curtis
• Appendix II
• List of contacts
• Government representatives
• Mr. V. N. Drazhyn, Vice Prime-Minister of Belarus
• Mr. A. A. Rumak, Deputy Director of the Department of Financial Relations of the Chief Economic Department
• Ministry of Labour and Social Protection
• Ms. E. P. Kolos, First Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Protection of Belarus
• Mr. I. G. Starovoitov, Director of the Department of Partnership Policy and External Relations
• Ms. L. A. Leshchinskaya, Deputy Director of the Department of Partnership Policy and External Relations
• Ministry of Industry
• Mr. I. I. Zolotorevich, Deputy Minister of Industry of Belarus
• Mr. G. V. Chymansky, Deputy Head of the Department of Labour and Personnel
• The Presidential Administration
• Mr. N.M. Ivanchenko, Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration of Belarus
• Mr. S. K. Pisarevich, Head of the Economic Department of the Presidential Administration
• The Ministry of Justice
• Mr. V. G. Golovanov, Minister of Justice of Belarus
• Ms. A. N. Bodak, Director of the Department of Law-making Activity
• Mr. M. M. Sukhinin, Head of the Department of Public Associations
• Mr. A. A. Alyoshin, Head of the Department of External Relations Legal Provision
• Ms. G. P. Podrezyonok, Head of the Department of Legislation on State Social Organization and Provision of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of Citizens
• The Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Mr. S. N. Martynov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus
• Mr. S. F. Aleynik, Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of the Republic of Belarus to the United Nations Office and Other International Organizations in Geneva
• Ms. E. B. Cherekhovich, First Secretary of the Department of International Organizations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belarus
• The State Committee on Aviation
• Mr. F. F. Ivanov, Chairperson of the State Committee on Aviation of the Republic of Belarus
• The Constitutional Court
• Mr. G. A. Vasilevich, Chairperson of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Belarus
• Ms. K.I. Kenik, Judge of the Constitutional Court
• Mr. V.I. Zhishkevich, Head of the Secretariat of the Constitutional Court
• Ms. A. P. Chichina, Assistant of the Chairperson of the Constitutional Court
• Mr. A.I. Seledevsky, Head of the Department of Public Addresses and International Relations of the Constitutional Court
• Representatives of workers’ organizations
• The Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus
• Mr. L. P. Kozik, Chairperson of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus
• Mr. E. B. Matulis, Deputy Chairperson
• Mr. M. V. Grafinin, Head of the Chief Department of Information and Monitoring
• Ms. E. V. Sedina, Head of the Department of International Relations
• Mr. V. F. Naumchik, Chairperson of the Agricultural Complex Workers Trade Union
• Mr. L.S. Sushkevich, Chairperson of the Belarusian Trade Union of the Cultural Sector Workers
• Mr. V. V. Fedorov, Chairperson of the Belarusian Trade Union of Industry
• Mr. M. E. Obrazov, Chairperson of the Belarusian Trade Union of the Workers of Public and Other Establishments
• Mr. V. V. Garunovich, Deputy Chairperson of Minsk City Association of Trade Unions
• Mr. A.S. Kartsev, Chairperson of the Trade Union of Minsk Tractor Works
• Mr. A. N. Vysotsky, Chairperson of the Trade Union of Minsk Automobile Plant
• Mr. V. A. Nikolaenko, Chairperson of the Trade Union of Minsk Refrigerator Plant “Atlant”
• The Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions
• Mr. A. I. Yaroshuk, Chairperson of the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions
• Mr. N. V. Kanakh, Deputy Chairperson
• Mr. V. I. Odynets, Lawyer of the CDTU
• Mr. V. P. Drugakov, Chairperson of the Free Trade Union of Metal Workers
• The Belarusian Trade Union of Radio Electronic Industry Workers
• Mr. G. F. Fedynich, Chairperson
• Mr. A. A. Dorogokupets, Deputy Chairperson
• The Belarusian Trade Union of Automobile and Agricultural Engineering
• Mr. A.I. Bukhvostov, Chairperson
• The Belarusian Free Trade Union
• Mr. G. A. Bykov, Chairperson
• The Belarusian Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers
• Mr. Yu. F. Migutsky, Chairperson
• Mr. O. A. Dolbik, Deputy Chairperson
• The Minsk Regional Trade Union of the Cultural Sector Workers
• Mr. V.A. Mamonko, Chairperson
• Representatives of employers’ organizations
• The Belarusian Confederation of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs
• Mr. V. V. Shashkov, Deputy Chairperson of the Belarusian Confederation of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, Director General
• Mr. E. Ch. Kisel, Deputy Director General, Director of the Belarusian Confederation of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs on Social and Labour Issues
• The Belarusian Union of Employers and Entrepreneurs named after Prof. M. S. Kunyavsky
• Mr. G.P. Badei, President of the Union of Employers and Entrepreneurs named after Prof. M.S. Kunyavsky
• Ms. N. K. Naumovich, First Deputy Executive Director of the Union of Employers and Entrepreneurs named after Prof. M.S. Kunyavsky
• OSCE
• Mr. E. Heyken, Ambassador, Head of the OSCE Mission in Belarus