Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 324, Mars 2001

1. 133. In a communication dated 16 June 2000, the Belarus Automobile and Agricultural Machinery Workers’ Union (AAMWU), the Agricultural Sector Workers’ Union (ASWU), the Radio and Electronics Workers’ Union (REWU) and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) submitted a complaint of violations of freedom of association against the Government of Belarus. The Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) joined the complaint in a communication dated 6 July 2000 and submitted additional information in a communication dated 28 September 2000. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) associated themselves with the complaint in communications dated 29 June and 18 July 2000, respectively. Additional information was submitted by the AAMWU, the Belarusian Free Trade Union (affiliated to the CDTU) and the REWU in communications dated 9, 24 and 25 January 2001.
2. 134. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 29 September 2000 and 11 January 2001 and transmitted additional information in reply to some of the new allegations in a communication dated 23 February 2001.
3. 135. 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. 136. From 18 to 21 October 2000, a preliminary contacts mission as envisaged in paragraph 65 of the Committee’s procedures for the examination of complaints was carried out in Belarus with Mr. Kari Tapiola, Executive Director of the Sector on Standards and Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, heading the delegation. Mr. Tapiola was accompanied by Ms. Karen Curtis, Senior Legal Officer, Freedom of Association Branch, and Mr. Vitali Savine, Senior Standards Specialist in the multidisciplinary team in the ILO Moscow office. The report of this mission is attached as Annex I.

A. The complainants' allegations

1. 137. In their communication dated 16 June 2000, the complainants allege that: trade unions cannot organize without prior authorization; state authorities are interfering with trade union activities; the minimum membership requirement for trade union registration and the legislation concerning the right to strike are in contravention of the freedom of association Conventions; and there is insufficient protection against anti-union discrimination.
2. 138. In particular, the complainants state that Presidential Decree No. 2 of 26 January 1999 "on certain measures ruling the activities of political parties, trade unions and other public associations" without any apparent reasons obliges all trade unions and their associations to pass a second registration process, regardless of the fact that a previous registration process had just been undertaken in 1996 after the adoption of the Law of the Republic of Belarus "on public associations". Moreover, Decree No. 2 introduced obligatory state registration of trade unions' sub-organizational structures, which had to be executed by the local executive and administrative bodies according to the place of location of the trade union organization. In the previous registration exercise, enterprise-level organizations were not required to pass state registration.
3. 139. According to the complainants, the Decree contains several provisions violating ILO Conventions Nos. 87 and 98: recurring registration of trade unions; minimum membership requirements for registration of trade union organizations at different levels; compulsory liquidation of trade unions that have failed to be re-registered.
4. 140. The accompanying "Regulations of state registration (re-registration) of political parties, trade unions and other public associations" require a wide range of documents to be submitted for registration, entail a complicated procedure of trade union registration, and provide a wide range of grounds justifying the refusal to register trade unions. The Ministry of Justice further issued the "Rules of drawing up and examination of documents submitted for the state registration of political parties, trade unions and other public associations, and also recording and state registration of their organizational structures".
5. 141. Section 5 of the Law on Trade Unions states that trade unions can be liquidated only according to the decision of the members of the trade union as foreseen by their statutes. However, in violation of the abovementioned law, Decree No. 2 provides that: activities of associations, which were not registered or not re-registered on the territory of the Republic of Belarus, are forbidden (paragraph 3, subsection 6); and associations which have not been re-registered must stop their activities and be liquidated according to the established procedure as of 1 July 1999 (paragraph 3, subsection 7). The Byelorussian Independent Association of Industrial Trade Unions (BIAITU), in accordance with its statute, made an application to the Ministry of Justice on 16 June 1999 for state registration. However, in a letter of the Ministry dated 1 October 1999 the BIAITU was informed that it was refused registration, "as the association is formed of the trade unions which represent and protect rights and legal interests of their members" and, besides, "there are other observations" (it is not specified which ones).
6. 142. The associations appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus against the illegal refusal of the registration. The Supreme Court judgement of 6 December 1999 denied the appeal. While recognizing that the refusal of the Ministry of Justice to re-register the organization was not based on the law, the Supreme Court independently established other grounds for the refusal. The said judgement came into force immediately and the association had to be liquidated.
7. 143. Another problem arising from the Regulations of state registration (paragraphs 3 and 4) concerns the wide range of documents required for registration, including confirmation of the legal address of the association, even for local trade union organizations. Trade unions are required to submit a document attesting the legal address of the local trade union organizations. In practice, a letter of the director of the enterprise where the trade union organization was created is required. Many organizations (including for example the local trade union organization OAO "Steklozavod Oktiabr" (Mogilev region), the local organization of Minsk Automobile Plant Free Trade Union of Metalworkers (Minsk), the local organization of "Tsventron" plant Free Trade Union of Metalworkers (Brest), the local trade union organization "Khimvolokno" (Grodno)) were refused such letters from their directors and subsequently were denied registration. As a result, the following local organizations have not been registered: the local trade union organization of the Belarusian Free Trade Union at the Grodno Fine Fibers Production Amalgamation (Grodno), the local organization of the workers of the "Minsk Instrument Engineering plant" (Minsk), the local organization of the Minsk Automobile Plant of the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers, the local trade union organizations of the Free Trade Union of the Byelorussian "Zenith" Plant (Mogilev), Mogilev construction trust No. 12 (Mogilev), Flax Processing Plant (Orsha), Companies "Electroseti" (Orsha), "BelVar" (Minsk), "Naftan" Production Amalgamation (Novopolotsk), "Avtogydrousilitel" plant (Borisov), Production and Technical Association "Shveinik" (Borisov).
8. 144. According to the complainants, trade union pressure in early 2000 persuaded the Government that such procedures infringed the right to create workers' associations. As a result the Ministry of Justice wrote a letter on 3 February 2000 (annexed to the complaint) which allowed organizations to submit for registration the following types of documents attesting the legal address of the sub-organizational structures: record of the organizational meeting where the trade union enterprise organization was founded, or the record of the republican trade union body about the creation of a sub-organizational structure of the trade union. However, a month later the Ministry of Justice issued a new letter clarifying that the legal address is indeed the address of the premises given to the trade union by the employer, and the director may, but is not obliged to, allocate such premises.
9. 145. Trade unions are thus completely dependent on the will of the head of the enterprise to issue a document confirming the union's legal address. In some cases managers of enterprises provided trade unions with a legal address, but recalled these documents later. For example, the director of the Mogilev Automobile Plant refused to confirm that the location of the Free Trade Union of the Workers of MoAZ corresponded to the legal address of the plant. The legal address of the local organization at the "Ecran" Mogilev plant was also recalled. As a result, the registration of many local organizations has become very difficult.
10. 146. The Decree also requires executive authorities to put sub-organizational structures of trade unions on record (paragraph 17 of the Regulations). However, the Rules of drawing up and examination of documents for the state registration foresee compulsory state registration of the organizational structures of trade unions and do not differentiate between state registration and recording. In many cases the executive authorities refuse to record local trade union organizations, demanding the initial registration as legal entities in the Ministry of Justice. The administration of the Oktiabrski region of Mogilev refused on these grounds to re-register three local organizations (local trade union organizations of the workers of the Mogilev Automobile Plant by the name of Kirov, OAO "Ecran", private employers of Mogilev.
11. 147. Decree No. 2 also stipulates that the creation and functioning of: republican trade unions require not less than 500 founding members, representing the major number of regions of the Republic of Belarus and Minsk; territorial trade unions require not less than 500 founding members, representing most administrative and territorial units of the respective territory; trade unions at enterprises, offices, organizations and in other places of work require not less than 10 per cent of workers of the overall number at the relevant enterprise, office and organization, but not less than ten people. According to the complainants, these requirements make the creation of new republican and territorial trade union organizations practically impossible and limit the chances of creation of trade unions at large enterprises. For example, these requirements underpinned the refusal to recognize the local trade union organization of the Belarusian Free Trade Union at the "Belgoles" State Timber Processing Amalgamation.
12. 148. The complainants further allege that the state authorities have increased their interference in the affairs of the trade unions. The policy of broadening state influence in trade unions is now reflected in legislation. The previous Law on Trade Unions, their Rights and Guarantees of Activities (part 1, article 3) banned all kinds of interference capable of limiting the rights of trade unions or impeding their execution unless otherwise specified by the legislation. A similar provision was contained in the draft of the new law on Trade Unions but was deleted by the President when signing this Law. The Chamber of Representatives of the National Convention examined the objections of the President and made the following amendment: "Activities of trade unions can be restricted in cases foreseen by the legislative acts of the Byelorussian interests of national security, public order, provision of the rights and freedom for the other persons".
13. 149. Lately cases of public state authority interference in trade unions activities have become more and more frequent to influence strongly the decision making processes and activities of trade unions. On 11 February 2000, the head of the Presidential Administration gave the following instructions to ministers and the chairmen of state committees:
14. 1. The ministers and chairpersons of government committees (trusts) shall submit personally to the Presidential Administration proposals for candidates who they shall recommend and support to be elected as leaders of branch trade unions at their republican congresses.
15. by 25 February 2000
16. 2. 1 The chairpersons of oblispolkoms (regional executive committees) shall submit to the Presidential Administration a list of candidates who they will recommend and support; for the election of leaders of regional committees of branch trade unions and regional associations of trade unions at the respective conferences.
17. by 25 February 2000
18. 3. The heads of respective ministries and government committees shall present information about the nature of participation of their subordinate officials in preparation and organization of republican congresses of branch trade unions, including the personal and quantitative aspects of the results of the trade union election processes.
19. by 25 February 2000
20. 5. Turning the attention of the Minister of Industry of the Republic of Belarus to the necessity of more active personal participation: in the election process of branch trade unions; the fulfilment of the current tasks; the collaboration with the branch unions during the preparation of their republican congresses and the congress of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB). For the quick elimination of the abovementioned shortcomings to submit to the Presidential Administration, information on the trade unions' election process in regions and at large enterprises, and on measures taken by the ministry jointly with interested persons to resolve the conflicts concerning trade union associations not affiliated to FPB.
21. by 28 February 2000
22. 6. The chairperson of the State Aviation Committee shall take necessary steps to improve the interaction with the branch trade union organizations in view of their preparation for their republican congress and the elections of delegates to the Congress of Byelorussian Federation of Trade Unions. He should also examine the possibility of broadening the branch trade union of the aviation workers through the incorporation of the Trade Union of Air Traffic Controllers and to the Trade Union of Airport Workers. In case of necessity he should take the according measures. The results should be reported to the Presidential Administration.
23. by 13 March 2000
24. 150. Following these orders the directors of many enterprises, in accordance with the instructions of the ministries, tried to influence the elections of the delegates for the republican congresses of branch trade unions. As a result, the directors of some enterprises or their deputies were elected as delegates to the 3rd Republican Congress of Automobile and Agricultural Machinery Workers' Union and to the congresses of other trade unions.
25. 151. On 20 April 2000 at the republican meeting of the representatives of trade union organizations and workers' collectives held in the FPB headquarters, a telephoned telegram from the head of the Presidential Administration was read. It said that the administration of Minsk is supposed to meet with the directors and activitists of enterprise trade unions on 27 April 2000. For the speeches on trade union activities, the head of the Presidential Administration recommended that the focus should be on supporting the policy of the country's leadership policy; implementation of decisions of the President and the Government through the workers' collectives; and criticizing shortcomings, especially in the work of the elected trade union officials.
26. 152. At the abovementioned meeting held by the Minsk City Executive Committee, the organizers drafted the following resolution which they tried to get adopted:
    • Participants of the meeting believe:
      • - that the attempts of some leaders of branch trade unions to aggravate political tensions by pressing through ill-thought resolutions and populist slogans are unacceptable. Participants call upon the rank and file trade union members to support in the forthcoming election meetings and conferences the constructive forces in the trade union movement; people ready to cooperate with state authorities to improve the living standard of the population;
      • - that it is necessary to create a city association of branch trade unions with the same rights as a regional (oblast) trade union organization and call upon all (local) organizations to switch affiliation toward the existing city trade union committees.
    • 153. Furthermore, the complainants allege that the Committee of State Security also interferes in trade unions activities. For example, in response to the inquiry made by the chairperson of the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers of Maz, the manager of AO "Priorbank" specified that the cash flow statement of the union was submitted among others to the Committee of State Security.
27. 154. The complainants also refer to restrictions on the rights to strike set out in the Labour Code which came into force on 1 January 2000. First, sections 379-387 of the Labour Code require long (not less than two months) and complicated conciliation procedures. Second, according to part 2 of section 388 of the Code, a strike can be held within three months after the rejection of the proposals of the conciliation commission, or - if the parts were addressed to a mediator and/or to labour arbitration - after the rejection of the proposals of the mediator and/or denial of the decision of the labour arbitration. Together this amounts to a period of five months. Third, the President is able to postpone the strike or suspend it for up to three months in the case of the creation of a real threat to the national security, public order, health of the population, or rights and freedom of other persons (section 393).
28. 155. In addition, section 395 of the Code provides that a strike or a decision to stage a strike can be recognized as illegal by the decision of the regional (Minsk city) court in cases when the strike is staged or a decision to strike was made in violation of the requirements of this Code and other laws. Section 397 of the Labour Code specifies that the participants of the illegal strike can be subject to disciplinary or other measures envisaged by the laws. Thus, if the court makes a decision recognizing the strike illegal even after the termination of the strike, the workers can be fired not for the participation in the strike but for the unauthorized absence without good reason.
29. 156. Finally, the complainants allege that various trade unions are subject to discrimination, and the rights and interests of workers are infringed due to their trade union affiliation. For example, the chairman of the local trade union organization at the OAO "Oktiabr" SPB, Mr. Evmenov, was punished and then dismissed. Pressure is applied (such as threat of dismissal) to workers who are members of the local organization GPO "Khimvolokno" of the Belarusian Free Trade Union. They are urged to leave the trade union.
30. 157. Furthermore, the administration of the Minsk Automobile Plant refused to employ - after the expiration of the term of office - the re-elected chairperson of the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers and, at the "Zenit" plant, members of the Free Trade Union were threatened with dismissal if they refused to leave the trade union.
31. 158. In its communication dated 6 July 2000, the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) indicated its decision to support the complaint sent to the ILO and to associate themselves with the position set forth in the complaint regarding violations of ILO Conventions. They added that the absolute majority of trade unions in Belarus have now associated themselves with the complaint and demand the authorities to respect both national legislation and ILO Conventions.
32. 159. To complement the already well-known cases of interference by the authorities in the conduct of trade union elections - for instance the imposition of the authorities' own delegates to conferences and congresses to attempt to replace "awkward" trade union leaders with ones more accommodating to the authorities and the exertion of pressure in decision-making processes - the FPB annexed a copy of a letter from the President's Assistant to the regional executive committees inviting them to attend a meeting with the head of the Presidential Administration to discuss preparations for the congress of the Byelorussian Trade Union of Workers of the Agro-Industrial Complex. The FPB considers this as an attempt to interfere in the congresses' work and to put pressure on the delegates in the election of the trade union leader.
33. 160. In addition, the FPB indicated in a communication dated 28 September 2000 that the government authorities continue to interfere in the internal affairs of the federation and of its member organizations.
34. 161. On 27 and 28 September 2000, just before the opening of the congress of the federation, its regular financial accounts were frozen on formal grounds and threats were proliferated against the leadership of the federation. Moreover, under pressure from the Ministry of Industry, attempts are being made to compel trade union committees of various enterprises ("Integral", Zhlobinsky metalworks factory) to withdraw themselves from existing industrial unions and to create their own unions.
35. 162. In conclusion, the FPB alleges that the Government is pursuing the task to destroy and to slander the trade union movement in Belarus in a steady and planned manner.
36. 163. In its communication dated 9 January 2001, the Radio and Electronics Workers' Union transmits additional documentation to support their allegations of acts of interference in their internal trade union affairs. In its communication of 24 January 2001, the Belarusian Free Trade Union documents their allegations of continuing difficulties to obtain registration for certain enterprise-level unions, and the Belarus Automobile and Agricultural Machinery Workers' Union submitted additional information in its communication of 25 January 2001 concerning alleged acts of interference.

B. The Government's reply

1. 164. In its communication dated 29 September 2000, the Government states that it has reviewed all the issues raised in the complaint very seriously and that it understands the need to continue to improve national labour law and the system of social partnership in the light of ILO experience. The Government asserts, however, that the allegations in the complaint have no foundation and the law of the country directly reflects the principles embodied in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. Moreover, the Government does not consider that Presidential Decree No. 2 in itself can be considered as restricting trade union rights. As for the legislative provisions concerning the right to strike, the Government states that these take into account the needs of the social partners and of society and are not in contradiction with the freedom of association Conventions.
2. 165. On 14 January 2000, a new version of the Law on Trade Unions was adopted, which gives the trade union broad powers in defending the rights and economic interests of the country's workers. The provisions of this law are based on generally accepted principles of international law and do not contravene the provisions of either Convention No. 87 or Convention No. 98. In particular, in accordance with Article 2 of Convention No. 87, part 1 of section 2 of the law guarantees the citizens the right to organize trade unions of their own choice, as well as to join trade unions on condition of observance of their charter (rules). In accordance with Article 3 of Convention No. 87, part 2 of section 3 of the law sets out that "trade unions independently formulate and confirm their charters (rules), determine their structure, elect their governing bodies, organize their activities, convene meetings, conferences, plenary sessions, congresses". Article 5 of the Convention was reflected in part 2 of section 2 and part 4 of section 3 of the said law: "Trade unions may freely set up national and other associations which are granted trade union rights, as well as to join these associations. Trade unions, in accordance with their proclaimed aims and tasks, shall have the right to cooperate with trade unions of other countries, of their own choice, to join international and other trade union associations and organizations". The law does not provide for a possibility to disband or temporarily ban trade unions on administrative orders, in accordance with Article 4 of the Convention. Part 3 of section 3 sets out that trade unions (trade union associations), their symbolism, changes and supplements to their charters shall be subject to state registration, as prescribed by the law. This provision, according to the Government, does not contravene the provisions of Convention No. 87 since the Committee on Freedom of Association and Industrial Relations, in its report to the 1948 International Labour Conference, declared that "the States are free to provide in their legislation for such formalities which are deemed necessary to ensure normal functioning of trade union organizations".
3. 166. As concerns the right to strike, section 22 of the law guarantees to trade unions the right to declare and carry out strikes in accordance with the national legislation. Moreover, section 25 sets out that trade unions, in order to implement their proclaimed tasks, shall have the right to organize and conduct, in accordance with the national legislation, meetings, street processions, demonstrations and other collective actions to protect their members' interests. Unlawful restrictions on trade union rights and creating obstacles to the implementation of their powers shall be prohibited (section 26).
4. 167. The Government further indicates that Decree No. 2 was issued because of the need to improve the activities of all legal persons, including the trade unions, in view of the adoption of new Civil and Housing Codes. Decree No. 2 sets out that in order to organize and operate a national trade union no less than 500 founders from the majority of regions of the Republic of Belarus and the city of Minsk are needed; for setting up a territorial trade union - no less than 500 founders from the majority of districts of the given territory are needed; and to set up a trade union in an enterprise, institution, organization or other workplace - no less than 10 per cent of the total workforce are needed, but no less than ten persons.
5. 168. The Government emphasizes that only the last provision sets out the condition for establishing a trade union as such and recalls that in earlier cases the Committee had considered that a statutory minimum of 20 workers should not in itself be considered an obstacle to setting up a trade union. According to the Government, the requirement related to the 10 per cent trade union membership in an enterprise, institution and organization does not seem to be too high either.
6. 169. As regards the conditions for setting up national and territorial trade unions, they are aimed, first of all, to ensure representativeness of the trade union in the course of conducting consultations and negotiations, participation in tripartite bodies and in sending delegates to the International Labour Conference. The legislation sets out that national trade unions shall act as one of the parties to the general agreement, to participate on an equal footing in the work of the National Council on Labour and Social Matters. Though the national legislation does not contain the notion of "the most representative trade unions", in fact these are those unions which have the national status. Thus, paragraph 3 of the Decree sets out clear and objective criteria for determining "the most representative trade unions" in the country.
7. 170. It should be noted that the non-recognition of the national or territorial status of a given trade union does not prevent it from exercising its rights with regard to protection of its members' occupational interests, to independently organize its activities, to formulate its chapter and programmes and to join federations and confederations of its own choice. The Government adds that Decree No. 2 provides for the registration (re-registration) of trade unions. Since, in accordance with the Law on Trade Unions, trade unions and their organizational structures are legal persons, registration is a necessary condition for their normal functioning.
8. 171. The Decree approved the Regulations on state registration (re-registration) of political parties, trade unions and other voluntary associations. With a view to clarify the procedural issues of registration the Ministry of Justice approved the rules on drawing up and considering the documents submitted for state registration of political parties, trade unions and other voluntary associations, as well as on registration of their organizational structures. Paragraph 11 clearly lists the cases when an association may be denied state registration; thus, the registration bodies cannot at their discretion decide who is to be registered and who can be denied registration. However, the denial to be registered can be appealed against in a court (paragraph 16 of the Regulations).
9. 172. The Government affirms that state registration should not be regarded as a preliminary permit to set up an organization, since registration is effected with regard to an already established, without any state interference, trade union which has its chapter, governing body and structure.
10. 173. As regards the requirement that the trade union (its organizational structure) must confirm, in the course of registration, its place of location (legal address), the Government states that the Law on Trade Unions gives the employer the right, in accordance with a contract (agreement), to place at the disposal of the trade unions, acting in the enterprise, institution or organization, premises, equipment, means of transportation and communication necessary for their activities. Thus, the issue of allocation of accommodation must be resolved in the course of collective bargaining between the employer and the trade union. On the other hand, there are no provisions that the legal address of the trade union of an enterprise, institution, organization (its organizational structure) must necessarily coincide with the address of the given enterprise, institution or organization. Thus, the issue of granting the trade union a legal address is no obstacle to its state registration.
11. 174. As concerns the right to strike, the Government states that the Labour Code provides for the formation, at the initial stage of a labour conflict, of a conciliatory commission composed of representatives of the sides to the conflict. The Government asserts that the use of voluntary mediation and arbitration is in line with Convention No. 98. As regards the code provisions regulating the declaration and carrying out of a strike, ensuring the minimum services during a strike, and the possibility to postpone or put an end to a strike in the event it poses a real threat to national security, public order, health of the population, rights and freedoms of other persons, the Government believes that these provisions do not contravene Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and fully guarantee the lawful workers' right to defend their economic interests through a strike.
12. 175. Finally, as concerns anti-union discrimination, the Government cannot agree with the claim that workers' rights and interests are impaired on grounds of trade union membership. The Government considers that the cases cited in the complaint, as a confirmation of existence of corresponding practices in the country, are not fitting enough and in no way serve as a ground for such claims.
13. 176. For example, the dismissal of Mr. Evmenov, who occupied the post of the head of compressor department at the glass factory "Oktiabr", is in no way connected with his membership in the Belarusian Free Trade Union. According to Order 230 of 13 December 1999, Mr. Evmenov was dismissed for systematic non-fulfilment of the duties of his job.
14. 177. In 1999, Mr. Evmenov had been disciplined and denied bonuses several times: Order 78 of 26 April 1999 - a strict reprimand with a 50 per cent bonus cut for a failure to ensure the participation of the department's workforce in a "subbotnik" (unpaid voluntary labour on Saturday) (this Order was appealed against and the appeal was rejected by the courts); Order 166 of 27 August 1999 - reprimand for insufficient control over the workforce activities; Order 241 of 29 October 1999 - rebuke for violation of regulations concerning the operation of high-risk facilities; Order 268 of 25 November 1999 - a reprimand with a 25 per cent bonus cut for non-efficient use of electricity. The Belarusian Free Trade Union appealed the dismissal of Mr. Evmenov in the Osipovich district court and in the board on civil cases of the Mogilev regional court, but the claim was rejected. On 6 September 2000, the Supreme Court considered this issue and left the previous rulings unchanged.
15. 178. The Government adds that the claims about infringements upon the rights of "Zenith" members have not been confirmed either. As regards the activities of the Free Metalworkers' Trade Union local at the state enterprise "Minsk Automobile Plant", it should be noted that the difficulties in the local's relations with the factory administration, including those in the course of implementation of the collective agreement, arose first of all because of the violations in the process of the factory local's joining the Free Trade Union. At the same time the Government concedes that in some enterprises the employers do infringe upon trade union rights, and this is a cause of concern to the Government. The management of the "Minsk Automobile Plant", because of the difficult financial situation in the enterprise, has delayed the transfer of trade union dues, accumulated by the local of the Free Metalworkers' Trade Union. During July and August, out of the total arrears of 2.5 million roubles, 1.8 million have been transferred. The remaining sum will be transferred in the nearest future.
16. 179. The Government concludes that the relations between the Government and its bodies with trade unions and employers are based on principles of social partnership, as well as respect for the national legislation and ILO Conventions and Recommendations. The contradictions and conflicts which arise during the registration (re-registration) of trade union organizations and the fact that their head associations lodge complaints with the ILO prove that in some cases the parties to this procedure do not have sufficient experience and are unprepared for the proper implementation of the conditions and actions prescribed by the legislation, and for the utilization of the existing possibilities. This applies also to the registration bodies. In some cases, a negative role was played by leaders of trade unions and by employers who were unwilling to settle their differences through agreement. The Government is of the opinion that such differences should be settled in a timely and flexible manner.
17. 180. In its communication dated 11 January 2001, the Government provided the following additional information in respect of the registration requirement to provide the legal address of the trade union. As a rule, a trade union gives the address of the premises provided to it by the employer as its legal address. On the other hand, the employer has no obligation to provide premises and the question of providing premises to a trade union in the enterprise is decided in the course of negotiations between the employer and the trade union.
18. 181. Since the legislation of Belarus does not contain any provisions prescribing that a trade union (or an organizational unit of the trade union) in an enterprise, institution or organization shall have its legal address only at the address of that enterprise, institution or organization, in the absence of an agreement with the employer the trade union may give the registering authority the address of appropriate premises outside the enterprise as its legal address. The letter from the Ministry of Justice referred to in the complaint specifies that: "the legal address is the address of the premises (building) in which the executive body of the legal entity represented by the owner or the person authorized by him is located". In this case reference is made to the owner (or person authorized by him) of the premises, and not to the employer as asserted by the complainants.
19. 182. The Government therefore cannot agree with the complainants' assertion that there is currently total dependency of the trade union on the employer with regard to acquiring the legal address needed to undergo state registration. The individual instances of refusal to register a trade union owing to lack of confirmation of the existence of a legal address do not involve the independent trade unions, all of which have been registered in the Republic, but rather the primary trade union organizations in the enterprise, which are organizational units of higher level republic unions.
20. 183. Under the legislation, trade unions in the Republic of Belarus independently formulate and adopt their by-laws and determine their structure. Thus a trade union decides itself in its by-laws whether its organizational units will be vested with the rights of a legal entity and accordingly undergo state registration just as all legal entities in the Republic of Belarus, or whether they will be recorded without acquiring legal personality. The absence of legal personality does not restrict the organizational units of trade unions in the exercise of their fundamental trade union rights and labour relations rights, including the right to bargain collectively and conclude collective agreements.
21. 184. At the same time it should be pointed out that the current system makes provision for confirming the existence of a legal address both in the case of state registration and when recording an organization. To a certain extent this encourages trade unions to opt for applying for legal personality for their organizational units, since this confers additional rights on them as business entities. Today most trade unions in the Republic include a provision in their by-laws for acquisition of legal personality by their organizational units.
22. 185. Given that there are over 28,000 organizational units of trade unions in the Republic and that most of these have their executive bodies only in premises provided by the employer within the enterprise, it is foreseeable that in some cases, for various reasons including objective ones, the employer may refuse to give the trade union organizational unit premises at its legal address.
23. 186. In order to solve the problems involved in registering the organizational units of trade unions, the Government is currently considering amending the legislation in force on registration, including Decree No. 2. The intention is to remove the need to confirm the existence of a legal address when recording organizational units that do not have legal personality according to the by-laws of their trade unions. It is also envisaged to allow trade union organizational units that have legal personality according to their by-laws to give as their legal address the address of premises within the locality where the organizational unit is located. Thus, if necessary, the organizational units of the same trade union in the same locality may use the same premises at the same legal address, and if the organizational unit is located in the same locality as its higher level organization, that organization's address may also be used as its legal address. The Government will keep the ILO informed of progress in the preparation of draft legislation.
24. 187. In reply to the allegations made by the FPB, the Government states that the trade union of the Byelorussian Metal Works in Zhlobin is not considering withdrawing from the branch union. The trade union of the "Integral" research and production organization has however withdrawn its membership of the Byelorussian Trade Union of the Radioelectronic Industry. It took the decision to do so independently. The main reason was the refusal of the branch union to reduce the dues paid at the enterprise to the branch union from 28 to 11 per cent.
25. 188. As concerns the freezing of the FPB bank account, the Government states that during the period from September to November 2000 the tax authorities carried out audits of the financial and economic activity of the FPB and its structural units to determine whether calculations were correct and whether tax and non-tax payments to the budget and special extra-budgetary funds of the State had been made in full and on time.
26. 189. Based on the results of the audits, the tax authorities ordered a total of 71,532,400 roubles in taxes and penalties to be paid into the state budget. The main violations identified during the audits were: carrying out activities requiring a licence without obtaining the necessary licence; concealing earnings; excessively raising the cost of goods sold; breach of cash discipline.
27. 190. The actions of the State Committee on Taxation inspectorates in freezing the accounts of the council of the FPB, the administrative department of the council, and the "Belprofsoyuzkurort" sanatoria and health resort enterprise were well founded and did not exceed the bounds of the legislation in force. In accordance with the legislation in force, the directors of the abovementioned organizations of the federation had the right, if they disagreed, to contest in the arbitration court the tax authorities' decision to freeze their accounts. However, it did not institute proceedings to void this decision.
28. 191. In view of the steps taken by the abovementioned organizations to settle their debts to the state budget, and of appeals made by the council of the FPB concerning the need to provide timely financing to children's and young persons' sports schools and clubs, and to pay electricity, heating, communications and transport bills, as well as wages and supplies to sanatoria and health resorts, the tax authorities sent instructions to the banks to partly lift the suspension of the accounts of the council of the FPB (dated 12 October 2000), the administrative department of the FPB (dated 10 October 2000) and the FPB's enterprise "Belprofsoyuzkurort" (dated 3 October 2000) so that they might settle the abovementioned expenses.
29. 192. Taking into consideration the fact that the taxes and penalties imposed have been paid in full by these organizations (which can also be regarded as an admission of the violations committed), on the instructions of the Minsk Central District Inspectorate of the State Committee on Taxation, operation of their accounts was fully resumed in accordance with instructions dated 24 October, 2 November and 5 December 2000.
30. 193. On another point, the Government states that a timetable for the settlement of arrears in dues to the primary trade union organization of the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers is now in force at the Minsk motor works. The management has created the necessary conditions for the primary union to carry out its activities. Based on the collective agreement, the plant is providing the union with premises, transport and communication. As for the "Khimvolokno" production association in Grodno, the Government states that no union members were dismissed.
31. 194. In its communication dated 23 February 2001, the Government replies to a number of the allegations raised in the additional communications made by the complainants. As concerns the issue of re-registration raised in the initial complaint and expanded upon by the Belarusian Free Trade Union in its communication dated 24 January 2001, the Government reiterates its previous indications about the need for a legal address in order to be registered and annexes a draft Presidential Decree which would eliminate this requirement for the purposes of being recorded in the case of organizations without any legal personality.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 195. The Committee notes that the allegations in this case concern: the imposed process of re-registration of trade unions by Presidential Decree No. 2 of January 1999 on some measures on regulation of activity of political parties, trade unions and other public associations, resulting in the denial of registration of a number of enterprise-level trade unions, as well as one branch-level association; government interference in trade union activities and elections; anti-union discrimination and harassment at the workplace; and excessive restrictions in strike legislation.
2. 196. The Committee takes note of the report of the preliminary contacts mission which took place from 18 to 21 October 2000 and wishes to thank the mission for its report which has provided useful insight into the problems raised in the complaint.
   • Trade union registration
3. 197. The Committee notes that the complainants contest both certain legal provisions in Presidential Decree No. 2, as well as the application of the Decree to certain primary or enterprise-level trade union organizations. In the first instance, the complainants allege that the minimum membership requirements to form a trade union, particularly at the enterprise level, and the provision calling for dissolution where a trade union has not been registered or re-registered under the Decree, not to mention the mere fact of being obliged to re-register only three years after the previous registration exercise, are contrary to the principles of freedom of association. The Government for its part explains that Presidential Decree No. 2 was issued because of the need to improve the activities of all legal persons in view of the new Civil and Housing Codes, considers that the minimum membership requirements for registration are not too high and states that the clause concerning dissolution has never been used.
4. 198. The Committee first notes that section 3 of the Decree sets forth minimum membership requirements at the enterprise level of at least 10 per cent of the workers at the enterprise. The Committee considers that, while a minimum membership requirement is not in itself incompatible with the Convention, the number should be fixed in a reasonable manner so that the establishment of organizations is not hindered. What constitutes a reasonable number may vary according to the particular conditions in which a restriction is imposed [see Freedom of association and collective bargaining, General Survey, 1994, para. 81]. In this respect, the Committee notes from the mission report that discussions held with both the workers' and employers' organizations have indicated that this requirement has had a severe impact upon the Free Trade Unions which have become, as a result, virtually non-existent at the local level.
5. 199. The Committee also notes that the notion of legal address necessary for registration under the corresponding Regulations and Rules has given rise to several denials of registration. The Government's explanations concerning confirmation of the legal address, both in its replies and as related in the mission report, do not appear to be entirely consistent. In its reply of 11 January 2001, the Government states that the union may give the address of appropriate premises outside the enterprise, yet also refers to the possible need to amend the Decree so as to permit trade union organizational units to give the address of the premises within the locality where the organizational unit is located. Furthermore, while according to the Government the absence of legal personality as a result of a denial of registration for primary-level trade unions does not restrict their fundamental trade union rights, including the right to bargain collectively, the Committee also takes due note of the various communications annexed to the complaint from the Ministry of Industry, and from several enterprise directors (as well as the information obtained by the mission), stating that in the absence of re-registration, the trade union in question loses its collective bargaining rights, including the cancellation of already existing agreements, as well as the suppression of other established rights concerning access to the workplace and the provision of premises, and are vulnerable to disciplinary action for carrying out activities on behalf of an "illegal" organization. As for the distinction between having a trade union placed on record and being a registered trade union (with legal personality), which was underlined to the mission, the Government admits in its latest reply that confirmation of the legal address is indeed necessary in both cases. Thus, the issue of legal address may even be an obstacle to the mere setting up of an organization, even without the rights attached to acquired legal personality.
6. 200. These conditions for registration should also be seen in the light of the provisions of the Decree that the "activity of non-registered associations and of associations that have not been re-registered shall be banned in territory of the Republic" and that "associations that have not been re-registered shall terminate their activity and shall be liquidated according to the established procedure". The Committee wishes to recall in this respect that the principle of freedom of association would often remain a dead letter if workers and employers were required to obtain any kind of previous authorization to enable them to establish an organization. Such authorization could concern the formation of the trade union organization itself, the need to obtain discretionary approval of the constitution or rules of the organization, or, again, authorization for taking steps prior to the establishment of the organization. This does not mean that the founders of an organization are freed from the duty of observing formalities concerning publicity or other similar formalities which may be prescribed by law. However, such requirements must not be such as to be equivalent in practice to previous authorization, or as to constitute such an obstacle to the establishment of an organization that they amount in practice to outright prohibition [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 244]. The Committee notes that, while, according to the Government, the clause concerning dissolution has not been used, the denial of registration to the Belarus Independent Association of Industrial Trade Unions (BIAITU) is tantamount to dissolution.
7. 201. Nevertheless, in the light of the above, and given in particular the potentially serious consequences of non-registration (banning of activities and liquidation), the Committee considers that Decree No. 2 as it is currently applied constitutes a violation of freedom of association. The Committee therefore requests the Government to exclude trade unions either from the entire scope of the Decree's application (if necessary, instituting a more simplified registration process), or from the excessive restrictions in the Decree particularly in respect of large enterprises requiring 10 per cent minimum membership at the enterprise level and the last two subsections of section 3 concerning the banning of activities of non-registered associations and their liquidation, so as to ensure that the right to organize is effectively guaranteed. As concerns the application of the notion of legal address under the Decree, the Committee notes from the Government's reply of 11 January 2001 that it is considering amendments to the legislation in force so as to eliminate the obstacles to registration caused by this requirement. It further notes, however, that the changes suggested in the draft Decree accompanying the Government's reply of 23 February 2001 would appear to be limited to the recording of organizations which have no legal personality and which would appear to have limited rights as noted above. The need to furnish a legal address for organizations wishing to be registered remains. Given the difficulties in obtaining the necessary legal address for registration purposes previously cited in the complaint and noted in the mission report, the manner in which the draft Decree will actually resolve the problems raised in the complaint in this respect is not yet evident to the Committee. The Committee therefore requests the Government and the complainants to provide additional information as to the practical resolution of the difficulties for registration encountered by the complainants. In addition, the Committee draws this aspect of the case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.
8. 202. As regards the specific allegations concerning the practical application of Presidential Decree No. 2, the Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided any specific information in respect of the trade union organizations cited in the complaint which were allegedly denied registration. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide detailed information on the status of the following organizations: OAO "Steklozavod Oktiabr" (Mogilev region); the Minsk Automobile Plant Free Trade Union of Metalworkers; the "Tsvetron" Plant Free Trade Union of Metalworkers (Brest); the local organization of "Khimvolokno" (Grodno); the Belarussian Free Trade Union at the Grodno Fine Fibres Production Amalgamation; the local organization of the Minsk Instrument Engineering Plant; the Free Trade Union of the Byelorussian "Zenith" Plant (Mogilev); Mogilev Construction Trust No. 12; Flax Processing Plant (Orsha); Companies "Electroseti" (Orsha); "BelVar" (Minsk); "Naftan" Production Amalgamation (Novopolotsk); "Avtogydrousilitel" Plant (Borisov); Production and Technical Association "Shveinik" (Borisov); Free Trade Union of the Workers of MoAZ (Mogilev Automobile Plant); local organization at "Ecran" Mogilev Plant; private employers of Mogilev; Belarussian Free Trade Union at the "Belgoles" State Timber Processing Amalgamation.
   • Government interference
9. 203. The Committee takes note of the Instructions dated 11 February 2000 issued by the Head of the Presidential Administration which call upon the ministers and chairs of government committees to interfere in the elections of branch trade unions, their congresses, as well as the Congress of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB). It also notes the allegations of further interference in trade union activities at the meeting between the Minsk city executive committee and trade union leaders and activists in April 2000. The Committee notes that the Government has not denied these allegations and appears to have tacitly admitted to them when it met with the preliminary contacts mission in October 2000, while adding that the Instructions are no longer relevant since the elections have taken place and the union-favoured candidates have won. The Committee must nevertheless recall in this regard that, when the authorities intervene during the election proceedings of a union, expressing their opinion of the candidates and the consequences of the election, this seriously challenges the principle that trade union organizations have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom. Furthermore, any interference by the authorities and the political party in power concerning the presidency of the central trade union organization in a country is incompatible with this principle [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 397 and 395].
10. 204. The Committee further notes the allegations made by the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) that, under pressure from the Ministry of Industry, attempts are being made to compel trade union committees of various enterprises to withdraw themselves from existing industrial unions and to create their own unions in order to encourage fragmentation in the trade union movement. While noting the Government's indication that in the case of "Integral", the union broke off of its own free will and that, on the other hand, no such schism occurred in Zhlobin, the Committee recalls that the Presidential Instructions of February 2000 also gave explicit instructions to the Minister of Industry to be more personally involved in the election process of branch trade unions and to inform of election processes in regions and at large enterprises and on measures taken to resolve the conflicts concerning trade unions not affiliated to the FPB.
11. 205. In the light of the above, the Committee is of the opinion that these Presidential Instructions constitute a serious interference in the internal affairs of trade unions and believes that they may have also had an impact upon the decision of the abovementioned enterprise union to break off with its branch union, particularly in the light of the information provided to the preliminary contacts mission concerning further obstacles placed in the way of the relevant branch union by the directors of affiliated enterprises, including denial of access to the workplace to officers of the branch union.
12. 206. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that such interference will not occur in the future, including through the revocation of the relevant instructions and, if necessary, by the issuing of clear and precise instructions to relevant authorities that interference in the internal affairs of trade unions will not be tolerated.
13. 207. As concerns the freezing of the FPB bank accounts just prior to their annual congress, the Committee notes the Government's indication that the tax authorities had discovered a number of violations when auditing the financial and economic activity of the FPB and its structural units. The Committee does not pretend to substitute itself for the tax authorities in respect of any violations of national tax laws which might have been determined. On the other hand, the Committee notes with regret that, rather than informing the FPB of the violations discovered and corresponding fines, as well as the possibility of appealing any relevant orders, the Government appears to have immediately opted for freezing the union's bank accounts, just prior to their annual congress. In this respect, the Committee recalls that the freezing of union bank accounts may constitute a serious interference by the authorities in trade union activities [see Digest, op. cit., para. 439]. While noting that, according to the Government, all frozen bank accounts have now been fully restored to the FPB, the Committee requests the Government to avoid having recourse to such measures in the future.
    • Anti-union discrimination and interference with trade unions
14. 208. The Committee notes the allegations that various trade unions are subject to discrimination and the rights and interests of workers are infringed due to their trade union affiliation. In particular, the complainants refer to the dismissal of the chairperson of the local trade union organization at OAO "Oktiabr" SPB, Mr. Evmenov. The Committee notes the Government's indication that Mr. Evmenov was dismissed for systematic non-fulfilment of his duties, including and beginning with his failure to ensure the participation of the department's workforce in a "subbotnik" (unpaid voluntary labour). The Committee notes from the documentation annexed to the complaint that Mr. Evmenov immediately challenged the disciplinary punishment for non-participation in the "subbotnik" which was initially rejected on the basis that execution of the "subbotnik" was obligatory and later clarified that the punishment was due to his refusal to carry out an order given by his employer to organize the "subbotnik" and, further, that he actually opposed the action. The Committee cannot accept that the failure to organize voluntary unpaid labour should be considered a breach of labour discipline subject to penalty and ultimately to dismissal. The Committee raises these doubts all the more so because Mr. Evmenov, as chairperson of the local trade union, may have very well opposed the organization of "subbotniks" because of his trade union convictions. In this respect, the Committee would recall more generally that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment, such as dismissal, demotion, transfer or other prejudicial measures. This protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they should have a guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions [see Digest, op. cit., para. 724].
15. 209. As concerns threats of dismissal to members of the GPO "Khimvolokno" Free Trade Union urging them to leave the union, the Committee notes that the Government has only indicated that no dismissals have taken place at this enterprise, but has not replied to the allegations of pressure and threats being brought to bear on union members, despite the documents attesting to such pressure which accompanied the complaint. Similarly, the Government has not replied to the allegations of threats of dismissal if Free Trade Union members did not leave the union in the "Zenith" plant. As regards allegations of anti-union tactics carried out by an enterprise, in the form of bribes offered to union members to encourage their withdrawal from the union and the presentation of statements of resignation to the workers, as well as the alleged efforts made to create puppet unions, the Committee has considered such acts to be contrary to Article 2 of Convention No. 98, which provides that workers' and employers' organizations shall enjoy adequate protection against any acts of interference by each other or each other's agents in their establishment, functioning or administration [see Digest, op. cit., para. 760].
16. 210. As for the Free Trade Union of Metalworkers at the Minsk Automobile Plant, the Committee notes the Government's indication in its latest reply that a timetable for the settlement of arrears in union dues to the union is now in force and that the management has created the necessary conditions for the union to carry out its activities. It notes with regret however that the Government has not replied to the complainants' allegations that the plant has refused to employ, after the expiration of the term of office, the re-elected chairperson, Mr. Marinich.
17. 211. As concerns the general and specific allegations of anti-union discrimination and interference and the Government's general reference to legislative provisions protecting against such acts, the Committee is obliged to note from the report of the preliminary contacts mission the lack of faith in the judiciary expressed by the trade unions and the serious questions posed by the UN Special Rapporteur in respect of the independence of the judiciary. Under these circumstances, the Committee considers that the most constructive approach to these remaining allegations of anti-union discrimination, harassment and interference would be best addressed through independent investigations that would enjoy the confidence of all parties concerned. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to institute independent investigations into all the above matters and, where acts of anti-union discrimination or interference have been discovered, to ensure that the effects of such discrimination are redressed. The Government is requested to keep the Committee informed of the progress made in this respect and of the outcome of these investigations.
18. 212. In respect of the dismissal of Mr. Evmenov for, among others, the refusal to organize a "subbotnik", the Committee considers that the information provided gives rise to a strong presumption that Mr. Evmenov was dismissed for the exercise of legitimate trade union activities. It therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that Mr. Evmenov is reinstated in his post with full compensation for any lost wages and benefits and to keep the Committee informed in this regard.
    • Strike legislation
19. 213. The Committee notes that the allegations concerning the restrictions on the right to strike in the new Labour Code concern the long process of conciliation, mediation and arbitration and the authority granted to the President to suspend a strike for up to three months in the case of a threat to national security, public order, health of the population, or rights and freedom of other persons.
20. 214. The Committee indeed notes that section 388 of the Labour Code permits legislative limitations on the right to strike in the interests of national security, public order, health of the population, and rights and freedom of other persons. Furthermore, section 393 permits the President to postpone, or to stop, the strike for up to three months in the same abovementioned cases. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the right to strike may be restricted or prohibited: (1) in the public service only for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State; or (2) in essential services in the strict sense of the term (that is, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population) [see Digest, op. cit., para. 526]. The Committee considers that the possibility of imposing restrictions to strike action under sections 388 and 393 goes beyond this principle and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that any legislative or other limitations on strike action will be restricted to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State and to workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term. The Committee draws this aspect of the case to the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations.
21. 215. As for the duration of the conciliation, mediation and arbitration procedures set out in the Labour Code, the Committee notes that only conciliation is obligatory under the Code and that the work of the conciliation commission is to be terminated within five days after the commission's formation which must take place within six days after the employer has refused the workers' demands (sections 379-381 of the Labour Code). The Committee is of the opinion that the duration of the conciliation procedures under the Code is sufficiently limited so as not to restrict excessively the exercise of the right to strike. In these circumstances, the Committee considers that these provisions do not constitute a violation of the principles of freedom of association.
22. 216. In conclusion, when reviewing the allegations as a whole, the Committee must express its deep concern over the numerous and varied attacks on trade union rights and the trade union movement in Belarus which can only be described as a regular and systematic interference in trade union activities in violation of the most basic principles of freedom of association. The Committee trusts that the Government will do everything in its power to ensure that all such attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of trade unions will immediately stop, thus enabling the trade union movement in Belarus to develop in full independence and autonomy.
23. 217. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to transmit any further information it considers relevant in reply to the additional allegations of interference raised in the complainants' most recent communications.

Z. Annex I

• Report of the preliminary contacts mission to Belarus
  18. (18-21 October 2000)
• Case No. 2090
• I. Introduction
• By a communication dated 16 June 2000, the Belarus Automobile and Agricultural Machinery Workers' Union, the Belarus Agricultural Sector Workers' Union, the Belarus Radio and Electronics Workers' Union and the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) transmitted a complaint alleging the violation of trade union rights in Belarus (Case No. 2090). The Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB) joined the complaint by a communication dated 6 July 2000 and sent additional information in a communication dated 28 September 2000. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers (IUF) associated themselves with the complaint in communications dated 29 June 2000 and 18 July 2000 respectively.
• Given the serious nature of the allegations raised, including impediments to the right to organize and governmental interference in trade union activity and elections, it was agreed with the Government, after having received the prior approval of the Chair of the Committee, to send a representative of the Director-General to carry out a preliminary contacts mission. In accordance with paragraph 65 of its procedures the mandate of such a mission is, inter alia, to transmit to the competent authorities the concern to which the events described in the complaint have given rise, to obtain from the authorities their initial reaction, as well as any additional comments and information and, above all, to ascertain the facts and to seek possible solutions on the spot.
• The preliminary contacts mission took place from 18 to 21 October, led by Mr. Kari Tapiola, Executive Director of the Standards and Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work Sector who was accompanied by Ms. Karen Curtis, Senior Legal Officer, Freedom of Association Branch, and Mr. Vitali Savine, Senior Standards Specialist in the ILO multidisciplinary team in Moscow.
• II. Conduct of the mission
• The mission had meetings with the following government officials and their aides: First Deputy Prime Minister and Co-Chair of the National Council for Labour and Social Issues; Minister of Justice; First Deputy Minister of Labour; First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs; and First Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration and Chair of the Commission for Registration (re-registration) of political parties, trade union organizations and other organizations. The mission also met briefly with the Prime Minister on its final day. (See the appendix for a list and names of persons met.)
• The mission met with the complainants in this case: the FPB and the complainant branch-level affiliates (listed above), as well as the CDTU and the Free Trade Unions of Belarus (FTUB). The mission also met with the two employers' confederations: the Byelorussian Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers (BUEE) named after Prof. M. Kouniavski and the Byelorussian Confederation of Industrialists and Businessmen (BCIB). (See the appendix for a list and names of persons met.)
• Finally, the mission had general background meetings with the Head of the Advisory and Monitoring Group in Belarus of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Mr. Wieck, the UNDP Resident Representative, Mr. Buhne, and a representative of the Helsinki Committee on Human Rights in Belarus, Ms. Protko.
• III. General summary of the allegations made
• The complaint focuses on two main violations of trade union rights. The first concerns the obligatory re-registration process as a result of Presidential Decree No. 2 of 26 January 1999 on some measures on regulation of activity of political parties, trade unions and other public associations. In particular, the complainants assert that the minimum membership requirements for registration restrict their right to organize, that the procedures are lengthy and complicated (particularly as concerns the certification of a legal address from the employer) and that the consequences of dissolution and the banning of activities are severe.
• The second major focus was on state interference, in particular the issuance of Instructions from the Presidential Administration to the Council of Ministers and local authorities to participate in the electoral process of the branch trade unions and propose alternative leaders. As for the effect of these instructions, the complainants allege that enterprise directors and ministry officials had themselves elected as delegates to the trade union congresses so as to influence the outcome, and union members have been convoked by government officials in attempts to have them adopt a resolution criticizing the trade union movement and setting out its priorities to coincide with government policy. The latest communication from the FPB states that the Federation's bank account was frozen just prior to its annual congress. In addition, allegations were made concerning the restrictive nature of the strike provisions in the new Labour Code, as well as on specific cases of anti-union discrimination.
• IV. Information obtained during the mission
• At the outset, the mission had expressed its regret that, with the exception of the Minister of Justice and a brief meeting on the final day with the Prime Minister, all meetings were with First Deputy Ministers or Heads, rather than with the highest-ranking officials in positions to make commitments or take relevant decisions. The mission, originally scheduled for early September, had been postponed to the second half of October at the request of the Government. In requesting this, the Government had indicated that the very busy work schedule of the Government and other state organs in September and the first half of October might affect the intensity of meetings if the mission arrived as previously agreed in early September. The government officials with whom the mission met stated their desire to cooperate and find appropriate solutions while emphasizing that they would ultimately resolve these issues among the parties concerned. This was expressed in no unclear terms by the First Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration who was confident that in a couple of months there would be no case left to discuss.
• The right to organize and the process of re-registration
• The Minister of Justice and the Head of the Department of Public Organizations explained that they were responsible for various aspects of the re-registration process. They had been dealing with registration since 1990. The 1992 Trade Union Act had referred to the Law on Public Associations for the registration of trade unions. Decree No. 2 issued in January 1999 required all previously registered trade unions, as well as political parties and public (social) associations, to undergo a new registration process. Several government officials indicated that trade unions were not the primary concern of the Decree. They were included in it because of the need to distinguish some purely social or commercial associations from legitimate trade unions. For the Minister of Justice, registration was a means for the Ministry to ensure that the trade unions did not violate the law and was necessary because the Civil Code required registration of all legal personalities.
• The Head of the Department of Public Organizations stated that all 38 branch-level trade unions had been re-registered, including the five Free Trade Unions. Only one branch-level organization, the BIAITU, was not registered. The Minister of Justice explained that the court judgement confirmed the Ministry's decision to refuse registration of BIAITU on the reasoning that the manner in which the Association had been formed was contrary to the procedure set out in the individual branch union rules. The Minister added, however, that the Ministry had not taken any steps to enforce the dissolution provisions of the Decree with respect to BIAITU.
• As concerns the requirement of a certificate of the legal address of an organization to be supplied by the employer for registration purposes, the positions on this were diverse and occasionally contradictory. For the Ministry of Justice, the address had to be provided by the employer, whereas this was not necessary according to the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Labour officials stated that the problem rather stemmed from section 28 of the Trade Union Act concerning the provision of premises by the employer to trade unions. They indicated that prior to the recent amendments of the Act, the employer had an obligation to provide premises to unions but that this was no longer the case. Consequently, the employer had no obligation to certify the legal address of a union as being on its premises. On the other hand, they believed that there would be no problem for registration if the unions provided a different address, such as one where their headquarters were located or, in the absence of such premises, the address of one of the founding members. Apparently no discussions with the unions concerned had taken place. The Ministry of Labour officials felt that the unions had made no such attempts because they wanted to insist on the employer providing them with premises. The CDTU and Free Trade Unions, however, denied that this was the case and stated that they merely wanted to be registered, but that registration was systematically refused if the employer did not certify the legal address; any subsequent attempts on their part to resolve the situation had been in vain.
• The Head of the Department of Public Organizations stated that the issue of legal address which had only affected enterprise-level organizations had been resolved for the organizations in the Mogilev region and that these organizations were now registered and functioning normally. The Free Trade Unions maintain, however, that the registration issue has not been resolved for their unions, nor has the question of who is to certify the legal address. They further consider that, while their unions have been registered at the branch and national level, the true objective of the registration process is to cut off the local unions in order to weaken the national union.
• Both employers' organizations stated that they considered that Decree No. 2 and the manner in which it was implemented were contrary to Convention No. 87 and the Constitution. The BUEE added that going through the registration process was quite difficult for them given that, under the Decree, they were now required to have at least 500 founder members who are to be natural persons and not legal entities as previously. In particular, this necessitated a reorganization of its founders, which had not been an easy task, but they were re-registered in the end. Their affiliates at regional level are now applying for registration. The BUEE expressed that they did not have any conflicts of the types raised in the complaint, such as questions of management interference, because the ministries cannot instruct the non-state-owned enterprises. Over 80 per cent of enterprises remain state-owned. Both the BUEE and the BCIB indicated that the Free Trade Unions suffered the most from the re-registration process and that they were practically non-existent now at the local level. In the first instance, these unions were still in the embryonic stage and it was very difficult for them to meet the necessary requirements of the Decree. They also pointed out that it was very difficult for their own organizations to function properly as they had no real legal reinforcement. They were registered but there was no law on employers' organizations clearly setting out the role they were to play in society and at the workplace. Given the preponderance of the state sector, the employers' organizations are small, and even though the Decree has affected them considerably, they abstained from openly criticizing the government authorities.
• Issues of being a recorded organization as opposed to a registered organization were raised both by the officials of the Ministry of Justice and by those of the Ministry of Labour. It was maintained that, under the Trade Union Act, only three people at enterprise level are necessary to form a primary-level organization within an overall trade union organizational structure and that such organizations could act as trade unions and could bargain collectively. Such organizations would, however, only be recorded and not registered; they would therefore not have separate legal personality nor their own bank accounts. When asked by the mission about the provision in Decree No. 2 which states that the activity of all non-registered associations will be banned and that the organizations shall be liquidated, the Minister of Justice stated that these subsections did not apply and had not been applied to trade unions. As for the matter of whether a non-registered organization has the right to bargain collectively, the unions and the employers' organizations maintain that they do not, whereas the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Labour officials state that they do. The Free Trade Unions state that in some cases where registration was denied, collective agreements that had been in force were unilaterally revoked, their organizations were considered to be "illegal" and their leaders were subject to threats of disciplinary action. Furthermore, their leaders are regularly denied access to the workplace to advocate unionization.
• During the meeting at the Ministry of Justice it was further stated that the issue of registration was not raised at the meeting of the National Council on Labour and Social Issues when the two-year general agreement was signed in August 2000, thus implying that the outstanding disputes in this regard had been resolved. The representatives of the CDTU and the FTU, however, stated that the unions which had been the subject of the complaint had still not been registered. As for the actual function of the National Council, the employers' organizations and the trade unions alike indicated that they considered it to be a rather formal body only, not a forum for real discussion and confrontation of these issues.
• The First Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration stated that they were envisaging a solution for the problem of the legal address for registration and that they proposed to place this before Parliament as soon as it was reconstituted.
• Government interference in trade union elections and activities
• The general reply of all government officials met in respect of the Instructions of the Presidential Administration to the Council of Ministers and local executive bodies calling for measures to interfere in upcoming branch-level and national-level electoral congresses was simply to state that the fact that in each case the incumbents were re-elected proves that there was no administrative pressure and this should therefore not be seen as a problem. The existence of the Instructions was not denied; neither was it said that they had been revoked. The First Deputy Prime Minister stated that the Instructions were of an informal nature simply to collect information and not of a regulatory character as the Presidential Administration does not have such powers. He further emphasized that no violation resulted.
• The First Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration recalled that the country's former system naturally affects the relationship between the social partners and the Government that has always had mutually dependent elements to it. He added that the Instructions of the Presidential Administration that were raised in the complaint were a small problem which practically did not exist anymore. The votes at the trade union congresses which had re-elected the previous leaders were statistical evidence that there had been no pressure from the State.
• The FPB stated that the objective of the Government in respect of the Instructions from the Presidential Administration and the various efforts made to oust the incumbent union leaders was clearly to bring the unions under state control. For them, the process continues but now takes a different form. The Federation's bank account remains frozen, the union and their leadership are regularly criticized and threatened and the management of enterprises are now being used to try to influence the workers to break away from the traditional union. Enterprise directors are often interfering in the election process and denying or restricting access to the workplace for union leaders. These attacks have come most recently in the radio-electronic industry, where incidentally the Minister and Deputy Minister of Industry are members of the union and have become active in trying to influence its decisions. In the complex of enterprises known as "Integral", the management had convened meetings of the workers to convince them to quit their union for alternative representation; and in several cases the management was successful. At Tsvetetron, one of the Integral group, the union representative was permitted access to the enterprise only 15 minutes before the vote for union representation took place. However, there had been other cases where directors had relinquished membership of the trade union so as not to be in a position where they might be pressured to interfere in their functioning.
• The FPB does not consider such attacks on their independence to be isolated ones, but rather an overall concerted attack on the entire trade union movement. They recognize, however, that one of the problems in this respect is that the employers' organizations are still not independent of the Government and enterprise managers remain trade union members and therefore have direct means of control. While managers have traditionally been considered eligible for trade union membership, in the current context the FPB is beginning to believe that this is perhaps no longer appropriate and that managers should have their own representative organizations distinct from the trade union base so as to avoid potential interference. The Free Trade Unions which were formed in the beginning of the 1990s have apparently not permitted membership of management.
• The BCIB considered that the absence of legislation setting out the roles and functions of employers' organizations left their members vulnerable to state pressure to interfere in trade union activities which was often difficult to overcome. The fact that the owner can dismiss managers under the Labour Code makes management excessively dependent upon the state, and subject to its pressure, given that 80 per cent of the enterprises are state owned. They had proposed a Bill on employers' organizations which had been approved by the Parliament but never signed by the President and had, therefore, never come into force. They too considered that it was important to separate management from trade unions and their affairs as this would facilitate the question of whose interests are represented. Several government officials, however, stated that they believed that the management of an enterprise should have the right to be a candidate for trade union elections, particularly in the interests of ensuring democratic elections with alternative candidates.
• As concerns the freezing of the FPB bank account, the First Deputy Prime Minister indicated that this was as the result of a decision of the tax authority that there had been a violation in respect of certain licences. In reply to a question of due process in respect of this decision, he stated that the Federation could of course appeal the decision to the courts.
• Other matters
• The FPB expressed concern over recent information that the Council of Ministers was planning to make amendments to the Trade Union Act as concerns representation for collective bargaining purposes. At present, all registered unions have the right to bargain collectively. The fear was that the provisions in this respect would be toughened and that many unions would consequently lose their status for collective bargaining. All the unions agreed that this would have a particularly negative impact on the Free Trade Unions.
• The Ministry of Labour stated that the trade unions themselves had raised the issue of representativeness and that they had every intention of consulting all parties concerned in the National Council on Labour and Social Issues before proposing any amendments to the Labour Code in this respect. Furthermore, it was indicated that ILO assistance on this matter would be welcome.
• General discussions were held with all parties concerning the new provisions of the Labour Code regulating strike action. Two major concerns were raised by the trade unions: firstly, they believed that the President would not hesitate to make use of the general powers given to him under the Code to suspend strike action in the interests of national security or the freedom and rights of other persons and thus would, for all intents and purposes, render any industrial action impossible; secondly, a concern was raised that the requirement to provide minimum services was now required under the Code for every single enterprise, regardless of its nature.
• The Free Trade Unions provided some additional information concerning Mr. Evmenov who they consider to have been dismissed because of his trade union activities. Normally, "subbotnik" (voluntary unpaid labour - for which Mr. Evmenov's refusal to organize was one of the elements in his dismissal) is a voluntary activity and no individual should suffer any consequences either for not participating in or for not organizing other workers in this respect. Furthermore, they stated that the additional disciplinary reprimands made to Mr. Evmenov leading to his dismissal were purely fabricated and intended only to get rid of him because of his trade union activities. While the government officials indicated that Mr. Evmenov had appealed to the courts which had found that his dismissal was justified, the trade unions had indicated that they had very little faith in the judiciary and were convinced that the judges would decide the cases in accordance with instructions given from above.
• The UNDP Resident Representative provided some information concerning the June 2000 mission of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of the Judges and Lawyers. The press release concerning the Special Rapporteur's mission notes that the President has excessive influence over the judiciary [and recommends constitutional changes in this respect (from final report?)]. The President has the power to appoint and dismiss most judges and they must pass a five-year probationary period before receiving tenure. Furthermore, the President appoints six of the 12 judges on the Constitutional Court at his own discretion and appoints the Chair who recommends the names of the other six candidates to be appointed by Parliament. As concerns the state of the laws, the Special Rapporteur notes that Presidential Decrees are given equal status to laws and the President was further given the power to issue temporary decrees of "special necessity". This power has been used to issue more than 70 decrees and some have been in force for over three years; many, according to the Special Rapporteur, are in contradiction with the Constitution and national laws.
• V. Conclusions
• While a great deal of time was spent going over the various issues involved in the complaint in detail, the conditions were not ripe for a tripartite summing-up meeting to attempt to find common solutions. This was partially due to the absence of decision-makers, as well as to the lack of openness on the part of the Government to potential solutions proposed by the mission and the absence of any alternative proposals. The mission therefore met separately with the government officials and trade unions to sum up the information it had received from the various parties and to provide some general conclusions.
• Firstly, given the various difficulties for registration that had been posed by Presidential Decree No. 2, the mission suggested that the simplest solution would be to lift trade unions from the scope of application of the Decree. In fact, many of the observations made by the government representatives had expressed doubt as to the necessity of having had trade unions covered by the Decree in the first place. Alternatively, all the obstacles to registration discussed during the mission needed to be eliminated, as well as the severe consequences for non-registration, in consultation with the social partners. Re-registration should not be carried out in a manner that appears to be more related to government control than a mere formality. The remaining non-registered unions at the enterprise level should be registered without a delay in a simplified process that would not restrict the right to organize. The government authorities should help the trade unions to meet the technical requirements concerning a legal address, and they should also ensure that misunderstandings on what this legal address meant would not persist and could not be used, including by the employers, to deny trade unions the right to be registered.
• Secondly, with respect to the Instructions of the Presidential Administration, the mission strongly suggested that they should be revoked, regardless of their current status which reportedly was almost non-existent. Clear instructions should be issued indicating, to the contrary, that public authorities must not interfere in trade union activities, elections and administration. If this was not done, the Instructions, albeit non-active now, would remain expressions of the Government's policy and could, at any subsequent time, be used as a justification for interference in trade union activities. Contradictory instructions which would recall the general principle of non-interference are particularly important given the potential for future interference by enterprise directors and managers. Furthermore, the enforcement of such instructions must be ensured.
• Thirdly, as concerns the freezing of the bank accounts of the FPB, the mission suggested that due process would dictate that such extreme measures would only be taken as a result of a full investigation in which those directly affected would have the right to respond. The mission recommended that the accounts be unfrozen and that any tax irregularity or other discrepancy be the subject of such an investigation and that any proven violation be sanctioned according to the law, rather than blocking the Federation's entire bank account.
• In the light of the above, the mission considered that all the elements taken together appeared to demonstrate a regular and systematic interference with trade union rights and activities. Such interference ranged from the denial of registration of previously registered unions (largely impacting upon the free trade unions) to a variety of efforts to divide traditionally established unions and bring them under state control. This pattern of interference was not only sanctioned by the Government, but also seemed to be ordered by the highest authorities in the country. The mission thus highlighted the importance of a clear message being given that interference in the internal affairs of trade unions would not be tolerated.
• The mission recognized that the political and economic transition that had begun in the early 1990s was not yet complete. For this reason, it considered that special emphasis needed to be placed on the role of the social partners. There needed to be a reinforcement of the importance of the independence of the partners in order to ensure a balanced representation of interests essential to both economic and social development. It would be normal to use a forum such as the National Council on Labour and Social Issues for discussing, and settling, problems that had arisen with the Decree.
• Employers were an important part of the solution to the difficulties complained of by the unions. The independence of employers both from the State and from the unions was essential to avoid confusion of the interests represented and to ensure true representational voices. The BCIE wanted an Act on employers' organizations to set out clearly their functions and role and this might be a first step in reinforcing the social partners. Another aspect which should be given some attention was the issue of enterprise directors as trade union members. In the current context and in the light of the allegations and the information received, there was a danger of management interference in trade union functioning. It might therefore be necessary to develop separate structures for managers and directors. Structures that were distinct from trade unions would guarantee the social interests of managers and eliminate the potential of management interference in internal matters of the trade unions. This was all the more opportune, as the traditional trade unions also now appeared to favour this option.
• With a clearer delineation of the employers' organizations and a reinforcement of the independence of the social partners, the National Council on Social and Labour Issues could function in a more complete fashion. Given that the unions and the employers' organizations had expressed some frustration about the limitations of the National Council, that body may need to be further reinforced so as to become a fully operational forum for social dialogue with the potential of resolving issues of importance for the social partners. The greatest task ahead is to create an atmosphere in which the social partners are able to have confidence in the structures of social dialogue so that all outstanding issues may be resolved among the parties concerned, fully respecting the rights and autonomy of each of them. The closeness of the views of the trade unions and employers on the Decree was a positive element, and it was encouraging to note that the traditional and new trade unions wished to continue close cooperation.
• Finally, while the issue of the independence of the judiciary generally reaches beyond the sphere of the complaint, the mission could not but conclude that the parties to the complaint had absolutely no confidence in the possibility of redressing matters through legal action. This lack of confidence explained the hesitation on the part of the unions to raise matters before the courts. The serious doubts raised by the UN Special Rapporteur concerning the impartiality of the judiciary increases the general impression that court decisions are likely to be unfavourable to the trade unions. Measures aimed at reinforcing the independence of the judiciary in Belarus would be an important and necessary element to restoring the confidence of the trade unions in the overall framework of social partnership.
• This last point brings the mission to its final conclusion concerning the overall environment in respect of trade union rights in Belarus. The divergencies existing between the position of the trade unions and that of the Government are quite deep and not likely to be solved by amending the law or even withdrawing the current Instructions. The trade unions felt generally that obstacles which might eventually be eliminated today would crop up tomorrow under a new guise. While the Government engaged in long and detailed discussions with the mission on complex legal issues, the necessary political will to engage in a real confidence-building process was not fully apparent to the mission. This political will is essential to a meaningful strengthening of the institutional framework for social dialogue and a review of the legal and administrative framework covering trade unions and employers' organizations which may lead to true social partnership in the future.
• The members of the mission wish to express their appreciation to the Government of Belarus for its preparedness to openly discuss the often complex issues involved in the case and the cooperation extended to the mission. It further thanks the FPB, the CDTU, the FTU, the BCIE, the BUEE and all other individuals met by the mission who have provided a great deal of information essential to a full understanding of the context in which the complaint was presented.
• (Signed) Kari Tapiola,
• Karen Curtis.
• Annex II
• The list of persons met by the ILO mission
  18. (18-21 October 2000)
• Meetings at the Council of Ministers
  1. 1 Mr. V. Yermoshin, Prime Minister of the Republic of Belarus
  2. 2 Mr. A. Kobyakov, First Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Belarus
  3. 3 Mr. A. Mikhnevich, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus
  4. 4 Mr. V. Stepanenko, Head of the Department of Economy of the Council of Ministers
  5. 5 Mr. I. Krasutsky, First Deputy of the Department of Economy of the Council of Ministers
  6. 6 Mr. M. Krapivnitsky, Senior Specialist of the Department of Economy of the Council of Ministers, Secretary of the National Council on Labour and Social Issues
• Meeting at the Presidential Administration of the Republic of Belarus
  1. 1 Mr. V. Zametalin, First Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration of the Republic of Belarus
  2. 2 Mr. V. Geisik, Department of Foreign Policy of the Presidential Administration
  3. 3 Mr. A. Petrazh, Deputy Minister of Justice of the Republic of Belarus
• Meeting with officials from the Ministry of Justice
  1. 1 Mr. G. Vorontsov, Minister of Justice of the Republic of Belarus
  2. 2 Mr. M. Sukhinin, Head of the Department of Public Organizations
  3. 3 Ms. E. Kazakova, Deputy Head of the Department of Public Organizations
  4. 4 Mr. V. Kachanov, Minister of Justice Assistant
  5. 5 Mr. A. Alyeshin, Head of the Department for International Cooperation of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus
  6. 6 Mr. I. Starovoitov, Deputy Head of the Department for International Cooperation of the Ministry of Labour of the Republic of Belarus
• Meetings with the Ministry of Labour officials of the Republic of Belarus
  1. 1 Mr. V. Pavlov, First Deputy Minister of Labour of the Republic of Belarus
  2. 2 Ms. E. Kolos, Deputy Minister of Labour of the Republic of Belarus
  3. 3 Ms. I. Chistyakova, Head of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Labour of the Republic of Belarus
  4. 4 Mr. E. Kasperovich, Head of the Department of Complex Analysis of Social Labour Problems of the Ministry of Labour of the Republic of Belarus
  5. 5 Mr. A. Kopot, Head of the Department of International Cooperation of the Ministry of Labour of the Republic of Belarus
• Meeting at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus
  1. 1 Mr. S. Martynov, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus
  2. 2 Mr. A. Mozhukhov, Head of the Department of Multilateral Economic Organizations
  3. 3 Ms. T. Khoroshun, First Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus
• Meeting at the Byelorussian Union of Entrepreneurs and Employers named after Prof. M. Kouniavski
  1. 1 Ms. T. Bykova, President
  2. 2 Mr. G. Badei, Vice-President
  3. 3 Ms. O. Bekasova, Executive Director
  4. 4 Ms. N. Naumovich, Director on Legal Issues
• Meeting at the Byelorussian Confederation of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs
  1. 1 Mr. N. Streltsov, Executive Director
  2. 2 Mr. V. Sevrukevich, Director on Legal Issues
  3. 3 Mr. E. Kisel, Director on Social Issues
• Meeting with officials from the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus (FPB)
  1. 1 Mr. V. Gontcharik, Chairman
  2. 2 Mr. O. Podolinsky, Head of the International Department
  3. 3 Ms. V. Polevikova, Head of the Information-Analytical Centre
  4. 4 Mr. A. Bukhvostov, Chairman of the Belarus Automobile and Agricultural Machinery Workers' Trade Union
  5. 5 Mr. A. Yaroshuk, Chairman of the Belarus Agricultural Sector Workers' Union
  6. 6 Mr. G. Fedynich, Chairman of the Belarus Radio and Electronics Workers' Union
  7. 7 Mr. A. Starikevich, Editor-in-Chief of the Belarusian Newspaper "Belarusky Chas" (Belarusian Time)
• Meeting with the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions (CDTU) and the Free Trade Unions of Belarus (FTUB)
  1. 1 Mr. V. Makarchuk, Vice-President of the CDTU
  2. 2 Mr. V. Zakharchenko, staff member of the Council of Representatives of the CDTU
  3. 3 Mr. V. Kozel, staff member of the Council of Representatives of the CDTU
  4. 4 Mr. V. Troshchiy, staff member of the Council of Representatives of the CDTU
  5. 5 Mr. D. Plis, Press Secretary of the CDTU
  6. 6 Mr. N. Kanakh, Representative of the FTU, staff member of the Council of Representatives of the CDTU
• Meeting at the United Nations Office in Belarus
• Mr. N. Buhne, UN Resident Coordinator/UNDP Resident Representative in Belarus
• Meeting with OSCE representatives
• Mr. H.-G. Wieck, Head of the OSCE Advisory and Monitoring Group in Belarus
• Meeting with the Helsinki Committee on Human Rights
• Ms. T. Protko, Representative