Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 334, Juin 2004

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 82. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2003 meeting when it requested the Government: (1) to clarify the situation of the Volynskaya Province division of the All-Ukrainian Trade Union "Capital-Region" as far as its registration with local authorities is concerned; (2) to set up an independent inquiry into dismissal of Mr. Linik and if there was evidence that he had been dismissed for reasons linked to his legitimate trade union activities, to take all necessary measures to reinstate him in an appropriate position without loss of pay or benefits; (3) to set up an independent inquiry into the alleged violations of trade union rights at the "AY-I EC Rovnoenergo" enterprise and keep it informed in this respect; and (4) to provide information on the alleged violations of trade union rights at the "Volynoblenergo" enterprise [see 332nd Report, paras. 175-178].
2. 83. In its communication of 8 January 2004, the Government indicates that it has requested the Central Administrations of Labour and Social Protection of Population to conduct thorough examination of the alleged violations of trade union rights in Volynskaya and Rovenskaya Provinces and assures that the results of the investigations will be sent to the Committee. In its communication of 31 January 2004, the Government states that in July 2002, the Territorial State Labour Inspection of the Rovenskaya Province together with the regional office of the National Service of Mediation and Reconciliation examined the allegations made by the Chairperson of the "Capital-Region" trade union concerning negotiation of the collective agreement for 2002 at the "AY-I EC Rovnoenergo". The Government indicates that a joint representative body, composed of an equal number of representatives from the administration and the trade union organizations, including the Chairperson of the "Capital-Region", was established for collective bargaining purposes. According to its section 1.1, "the Agreement is concluded between the owner of the ‘AY-I EC Rovnoenergo’" [...] and the joint representative body of the working collective of the "AY-I EC Rovnoenergo", which includes the trade union of workers of energy sector and electrical industry of Ukraine and the All-Ukrainian Trade Union "Capital-Region". The Government states that this section testifies to the recognition of the legitimacy of both trade unions present at the enterprise. It further states that two sections recognizing the trade union of workers of energy sector and electrical industry of Ukraine as an exclusive representative of the workers at the enterprise were in fact included in the collective agreement. The inspection concluded that these provisions were discriminatory against the All-Ukrainian Trade Union "Capital-Region" and requested the manager of the enterprise and the chairperson of the trade union committee to bring them into conformity with the legislation. On 25 October 2002, the Conference of the working collective of the enterprise amended the collective agreement and extended the period of its validity for the year 2003. The Government further indicates that no other issues had been raised concerning the violation of the legislation by the owner of the "AY-I EC Rovnoenergo" with regard to the trade union "Capital-Region".
3. 84. Concerning the Committee’s request to clarify the situation of the Volynskaya Province division of the All-Ukrainian Trade Union "Capital-Region" as far as its registration with local authorities is concerned, the Government indicates that no documents for the registration of this organization were submitted to the regional Department of Justice.
4. 85. Concerning the dismissal of Mr. Linik on 26 May 1999, the Government indicates that it was carried out without the violation of the existing legislation. The Government further states that Mr. Linik did not lodge an appeal against this decision of the administration, neither with a labour dispute commission of the enterprise nor with the court. Finally, the Government states that the allegations of the persecution of Mr. Linik for his trade union activities were not corroborated.
5. 86. The Government further indicates that the Regional State Administration examined the allegations of the persecution of the trade union activists of the complainant organization and concluded that there was no violation of trade union rights. The Government points out that at present, the primary trade union organization of the All-Ukrainian Trade Union at the Lutsk Bearing Plant is not functioning.
6. 87. The Committee notes the statement of the Government. With regard to the alleged violations of trade union rights at the "AY-I EC Rovnoenergo" and "Volynoblenergo" enterprise, the Committee notes that in its communication of 8 January 2004, the Government indicates that it has requested the Central Administrations of Labour and Social Protection of the Population to conduct thorough examination of allegations of violation of trade union rights in Rovenskaya and Volynskaya Provinces. The Committee notes, however, that in its communication of 31 January 2004, the Government refers to the investigation carried out in July 2002. The Committee reiterates its previous request and urges the Government to transmit the conclusions of the independent investigation on violations of trade union rights at the "AY-I EC Rovnoenergo" and the "Volynoblenergo" enterprise, alleged by the complainant in its communications of 2 January and 5 May 2003.
7. 88. Concerning the dismissal of Mr. Linik, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that Mr. Linik did not lodge an appeal against this decision of the administration, neither with a labour dispute commission of the enterprise nor with the court. It recalls, however, that in its communication of 14 April 2003, the Government refers to the April 1999 decision of the Territorial State Labour Inspectorate, which examined the representation of Mr. Linik concerning his dismissal. It further recalls that since February 2000, the Committee has been asking the Government to set up an independent inquiry into this case. The Committee once again reiterates its request and, if there is evidence that Mr. Linik had been dismissed for reasons linked to his legitimate trade union activities, it urges the Government to take all the necessary measures to reinstate him in an appropriate position without loss of wages and benefits or, if reinstatement is not possible, to pay Mr. Linik an adequate compensation.