Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2010, Publicación: 100ª reunión CIT (2011)

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the Confederation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova (CRSM) in a communication dated 4 September 2009 and the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 6 September 2010 concerning the issues raised by the Committee below. The Committee also notes the Government’s reply to the 2008 ITUC comments.

Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination and of interference. In its previous observation, the Committee had noted that section 61 of the new Code on Contraventions adopted in 2008 provided for the application of fines in the amount of 40 to 50 conventional units (one unit equals 20 MDL) for the obstruction of the right of workers to establish and join trade unions. The Committee had further noted the Government’s indication that the working group, constituted of representatives of the Ministry of Economy and Trade, the National Confederation of Trade Unions and the Ministry of Justice, examined the possibility of setting administrative sanctions against acts of interference in trade union activities, not covered by section 61. The Committee had requested the Government to provide information on any new developments in this respect and to ensure that these sanctions are applied through effective and expeditious procedures. The Committee notes that the ITUC and CRSM indicate that the scope of section 61 of the Code on Contraventions is very limited since it sanctions solely the obstruction of workers’ right to establish and join trade unions and not all acts of anti-union discrimination and interference as prohibited by section 37(1) of the Law on Trade Unions. The Committee further notes that the Government indicates in its report that the possibility of amendment of section 61 of the Code on Contraventions will be reviewed in the near future. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement in its reply to the 2008 ITUC comments that up until the adoption of the new Code on Contraventions, violations of trade union rights were covered by section 41 of the Code of Administrative Contraventions, which sanctioned violations of labour legislation and provided for the application of fines amounting to up to 250 conventional units. The Committee notes that section 55 of the new Code on Contraventions is a similar provision to section 41 of the repealed Code of Administrative Contraventions, which sanctions violations of labour legislation but provides for the application of lower fines (amounting up to 50 conventional units for individuals, 75 conventional units for responsible persons and up to 120 conventional units for legal entities). It further notes that, according to the ITUC, law enforcement remains weak. The Committee recalls the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2317 where it had requested the Government to actively consider, in full and frank consultations with social partners, legislative provisions expressly sanctioning violations of trade union rights and providing for sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against acts of interference in trade union internal affairs (see 350th Report). The Committee considers that neither section 61, nor section 55 the Code on Contraventions provide for sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination and acts of interference. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary legislative amendments ensuring the adequate protection of workers’ and employers’ organizations against acts of anti-union discrimination and interference will soon be adopted. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the legislative texts adopted in the future provide for sufficiently dissuasive sanctions in cases of violation and for effective and expeditious procedures to guarantee their application in practice.

Article 4. Compulsory arbitration. In its previous observations, the Committee had requested the Government to amend section 360(1) of the Labour Code, which allowed the imposition of arbitration by the authorities at the request of one party so as to ensure that recourse to compulsory arbitration is possible only in the context of essential services in the strict sense of the term (i.e. services, the interruption of which would endanger the life, safety or health of the whole or part of the population) or for public servants engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the question of amendment of section 360(1) of the Labour Code will be examined after discussions with the social partners on the issue concerning determination of minimum services in the case of strike. The Committee also notes the Government’s intention to amend section 359(2) of the Labour Code, pursuant to which in order to settle a collective dispute the parties may, within three calendar days from the beginning of the dispute, establish a conciliation commission formed of an equal number of representatives of the parties to the dispute, so as to repeal the time frame within which a conciliation commission should be established. The Committee expresses the hope that the necessary amendments to section 360(1) of the Labour Code will be adopted in the near future so as to ensure that the referral to compulsory arbitration is possible only upon request by both parties to the dispute, or for essential services in the strict sense of the term or for public servants engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee requests the Government to indicate measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.