Rapport où le comité demande à être informé de l’évolution de la situation - Rapport No. 324, Mars 2001

1. 897. The Committee examined this case during its November 1999 meeting and presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 318th Report, paras. 405-430, approved by the Governing Body at its 276th Session (November 1999)].
2. 898. The Government sent additional observations in a communication dated 22 August 2000.
3. 899. The Russian Federation has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 48), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98); it has not ratified the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 900. The Committee's previous examination of the case addressed violations of the right to bargain collectively of the trade union of workers of the All Russian State Television and Radio Company (VGTRK). It also covered allegations of VGTRK's interference with the trade union's activities by, inter alia, withdrawing facilities for workers' representatives.
2. 901. In November 1999, the Committee formulated the following recommendations [see 319th Report, para. 430]:
   • (a) Noting that the national legislation provides avenues for facilitating collective bargaining, including access to information, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the legislation is applied in practice and to take measures to ensure that VGTRK [All Russian State Television and Radio Company] negotiates in good faith with the complainant and to provide information relevant to collective bargaining.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to make the necessary modifications to the legislation, keeping in mind the principles in Convention No. 135 and Recommendation No. 143, and to keep it informed of the measures taken in this respect.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the facilities necessary for its proper functioning are granted to the complainant trade union.
   • (d) The Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure that VGTRK allows trade union dues to be deducted and transferred to the complainant when expressly requested by members, and to provide information concerning the deductions that have been withheld or suspended.

B. The Government's reply

1. 902. In its communication of 22 August 2000, the Government indicates that, at the request of the Russian Federation Ministry of Labour and Social Development, the Federal Labour Inspectorate carried out further investigations, including on-site inspections. These additional verifications revealed that an agreement was concluded in 1999 between VGTRK and the Central Committee of the All Russian Trade Union of Communications Workers of the Russian Federation; it included lump sum benefits, bonuses and incentives for VGTRK workers, the last of these having been agreed with the All Russian Trade Union of Communications Workers of the Russian Federation and the Russian Trade Union of Cultural Workers to which the complainant is affiliated. Both the Russian Trade Union of Cultural Workers and the All Russian Trade Union of Communications Workers of the Russian Federation are affiliated to the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR).
2. 903. The Government adds that five primary trade union organizations are actually represented within the VGTRK, including the complainant whose chairperson is Ms. I.L. Zuyeva. The fact that an agreement was concluded between the All Russian Trade Union of Communications Workers, which, according to the Government, represents the majority of VGTRK's workers, does not prevent the other four unions represented within the company from holding collective discussions on joining the communication workers' union, from reaching a separate agreement with the VGTRK or from taking other action to settle disputes that have arisen in accordance with international standards and Russian law. The Government also recognizes that, for some considerable time, Ms. Zuyeva has been asking the VGTRK administration for collective bargaining with a view to concluding a separate collective agreement. As the dispute between the parties on this matter had not been resolved, the Government recalls that Ms. Zuyeva has referred to a number of bodies, including the Public Prosecution Authority, the Federal Labour Inspectorate, the judiciary and the ILO.
3. 904. More precisely, as regards the Committee's interim conclusions, the Government reiterates the observations that it has provided it with in its communication of August 1999. With regard to the complainant's allegations concerning violations of the right to bargain collectively, the Government states that, in accordance with sections 2(3), 4 and 7 of the Law on Collective Agreements and Accords, only duly authorized parties' representatives (including the relevant bodies of the trade unions and their associations) should take part in collective bargaining; it is therefore quite legitimate for the Government to verify that representatives who wish to enter into the process are "duly authorized". With regard to the complainant's allegations of interference in trade union affairs, the Government states that, according to section 28(1) and (3) of the Federal Law on Trade Unions, Their Rights and Safeguards for Their Activities, "employers are to provide trade unions functioning in the enterprise, free of charge, with the facilities, premises, transport and means of communication needed for their activities, in accordance with the relevant collective agreement". The same principles apply to monthly deductions from wages of trade union membership dues that are made free of charge, subject to the written request of workers. The Government asserts that the company bears no legal obligation if the relevant collective agreement does not include such provisions or if there is no collective agreement in force.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 905. The Committee notes that this case concerns allegations of violations by the All Russian State Television and Radio Company (VGTRK) of the right to bargain collectively of the Trade Union of Workers of the All Russian State Television and Radio Company as well as allegations of interference in trade union activities which includes the withdrawal of facilities to workers' representatives.
2. 906. Generally, the Committee regrets that, in its last communication, the Government has not provided any information on the recommendations it has addressed to it in its last interim report, even though the Government states that it carried out additional investigations, including on-site inspections at VGTRK's premises.
   • Collective bargaining
3. 907. The Committee notes that, in its last communication, the Government insists once again on the necessity to verify under national legislation whether workers' representatives have been duly authorized to conduct collective bargaining and disputes the complainant's chairperson's authority to proceed in this regard. On this issue, however, the Committee would like to recall that the Government has not contested the fact that the complainant is a representative trade union within VGTRK nor that since 1993 the complainant has unsuccessfully tried to enter into collective bargaining with the enterprise's administration. In addition, the Committee recalls that both the Public Prosecutor and the Labour Inspectorate of the Russian Federation concluded that VGTRK had infringed its obligations by refusing to take part in collective bargaining. It is not useless to recall that the Public Prosecutor considered that "... through the management's fault, negotiations still have not begun ... Such behaviour on the part of the management of VGTRK is nothing other than a refusal to engage in collective bargaining with a view to concluding a collective agreement" (letter dated 17 April 1998 mentioned in paragraph 409 of the Committee's 318th Report). To this conclusion, the Public Prosecutor added that VGTRK's management "regularly interferes in the activities of the trade union, for example by repeated demands that the trade union committee produce various documents, including its constituent documents, in order to check up on the legality of the trade union's activities" (letter dated 24 April 1998 mentioned in the same paragraph of the report). On its part, the Federal Labour Inspectorate corroborated the Prosecution's conclusions. It is true that the question of the authority of the complainant's chairperson was also raised in the context of the law suit before the Moscow Municipal Court. However, no decision on the merit of the matter had been rendered on that occasion by the Court.
4. 908. In these circumstances, the Committee can only reiterate its previous findings according to which VGTRK was not acting in good faith by consistently refusing to bargain collectively with the complainant's representative since 1993 and therefore requests once again the Government to take measures to ensure that VGTRK negotiates in good faith with the complainant and makes use of national legislative avenues in order to provide the complainant with information relevant to collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.
   • Interference with trade union activities
5. 909. The Government argues that, because there was no collective agreement, the employer was under no legal obligation to provide necessary facilities nor to deduct trade union membership dues from wages, subject to the written request of the workers. In other words, by evading collective bargaining, the Committee understands that the employer can, in accordance with national legislation, deny access to facilities necessary for the proper functioning of trade unions. The Committee had previously concluded that the absence of a collective agreement in this case followed from the VGTRK's hostile attitude to the commencement of negotiations and had already considered that this absence of an agreement was not a sufficient justification to deny facilities to the trade union, including check-off facilities [see 318th Report, para. 427]. At its last examination of the case, the Committee therefore requested the Government to ensure that the facilities necessary for its proper functioning were granted to the complainant trade union. On this issue, the Committee also noted the deficiency of the legislation and requested the Government to make the necessary modifications to it, keeping in mind the principle that facilities in the undertaking shall be afforded to workers' representatives as may be appropriate to enable them to carry out their functions promptly and efficiently. The Committee also requested the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in this respect. In the light of the Government's last observations, the Committee cannot but reiterate all of the abovementioned recommendations.
6. 910. Finally, the Committee wishes to recall that it has previously noted with deep regret that VGTRK had on various occasions deducted dues without remitting them to the complainant or suspended deductions and requested the Government to provide it with information in this regard. Unfortunately, the Government did not address this issue in its last communication. Recalling that the withdrawal of check-off facilities could lead to serious problems for the trade union and should, for this very reason, be avoided, the Committee urges the Government to take measures to ensure that VGTRK allows trade union dues to be deducted and transferred to the complainant when expressly requested by members. The Committee also requests once again the Government to provide information concerning the deductions that have been withheld or suspended.