GENEVA (ILO News) – Following a complaint under Art. 26 of the International Labour Organization Constitution against the government of Belarus for non-observance of the fundamental freedom of association Conventions Nos. 87 and 98, the Governing Body decided to establish a special Commission of Inquiry to examine violations of trade union rights in the country.
A letter signed by 14 Worker Delegates to the June 2003 Conference requesting procedures under Article 26 refers to "numerous instances of gross violations of these fundamental ILO Conventions, committed in recent years by the Belarus authorities and many employers against the country's trade union movement".
The Governing Body followed the recommendation of its Committee on Freedom of Association to set up a Commission of Inquiry. The procedure under Article 26 is usually invoked only in the case of persistent violations and disregard for the decisions of the ILO supervisory bodies. It has earlier been used by the Organization on ten occasions.
In its report published three times a year, the Committee on Freedom of Association drew the Governing Body's special attention to the case of Belarus which was first presented in June 2000. It was the seventh time that the Committee noted that serious attacks have been and continue to be made on all attempts to maintain a free and independent trade union movement.
In particular, the Committee deeply regretted the sentencing of the Chairperson of the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions of Belarus (CDTU), Mr. Yaroshuk, to ten days administrative detention for having criticized a Supreme Court ruling dissolving a trade union. It further noted that recourse to administrative detention of trade union officials was becoming more frequent and condemned the ten day detention of the President of the Belarus of the Automobile and Agricultural Machinery Workers' Union (AAMWU), Mr. Bukhvostov, and the five-day detention of the CDTU lawyer, Mr. Odynets.
Noting with deep regret that no steps have yet been taken by the Government to implement the Committee's recommendations, it called upon the Government of Belarus to ensure that trade union leaders may fully exercise their freedom of expression in the future, without fear of reprisal.
Following the examination of 28 cases on their merits, and the examination of the implementation of its recommendations in 43 cases, the Committee on Freedom of Association cited besides Belarus two other urgent cases, Cuba and Zimbabwe, for infringements of the principle of freedom of association and violations of trade union rights. In its report, the Committee also dealt, among others, with freedom of association rights of undocumented workers in the United States and collective bargaining issues in Denmark and Sweden.
In the case of Cuba, the Committee referred to the long-standing issue of the authorities' recognition of only one trade union central , which is controlled by the State and by the Communist Party, and the consequent prohibition of independent trade unions.
In particular, the Committee noted the extremely harsh sentencing (between 15 and 26 years imprisonment) of seven trade union officials coming from the Single Council of Cuban Workers (CUTC), the Independent National Workers' Confederation of Cuba (CONIC), and the Confederation of Democratic Workers of Cuba (CTDC).
The Committee emphasized that workers should have the right to establish, in full freedom, the organizations that they consider necessary, irrespective of whether or not they support the political, social and economic model of the country, and that it is for these organizations to decide whether they should receive funding for legitimate activities in the promotion and defence of human and trade union rights.
Taking into account the various cases examined by the Committee relating to harassment and detention of members of independent trade union organizations, the Committee requested the Government to take steps for their immediate release. Finally, in light of the seriousness of the issues involved in this case, the Committee urged the Government to accept a direct contacts mission.
Regarding allegations on the arrest and intimidation of several leaders of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), and the beating and threats made to the ZCTU General Secretary, the Committee expressed particular concern at the fact that such interference seemed to be recurrent in Zimbabwe and could create an atmosphere of intimidation and fear prejudicial to the normal development of trade union activities.
The Committee had already been called upon to examine similar serious allegations last year in respect of an earlier police intervention in ZCTU activities. It considered the symposium and meetings organized by the ZCTU in December 2002 were legitimate trade union activities and that the subsequent arrests were directly related to these activities.
While noting that the trade unionists in question had been released by judicial order, the Committee requested the Government to abstain in future from resorting to such measures of arrest and detention of trade unionists exercising trade union activities, to institute a thorough and independent investigation and to punish those responsible for the detentions.
In the case of the United States, the Committee examined a complaint submitted by the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and the Confederation of Mexican Workers (CTM) against the Government of the United States.
The allegations in this case concerned the consequences of the United States Supreme Court ruling (Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board) that, because of his immigration status, an undocumented worker, whose job was obtained in the first instance by a criminal fraud, was not entitled to back pay for lost wages after having been illegally dismissed for exercising the trade union rights protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Statistics of the US Census Bureau set the number of undocumented workers in the United States at eight million workers.
The Government affirmed that undocumented workers still had trade union rights and that they remained covered by the NLRA; the Supreme Court ruling only affected the remedies available in the event that NLRA provisions were violated. The remedies available for undocumented workers whose trade union rights are violated following the Hoffman decision are confined to a cease and desist order and the conspicuous posting of a notice to employees setting forth their rights under the NLRA and detailing the prior unfair practices.
The Committee concluded that such remedies in no way sanctioned the act of anti-union discrimination already committed, but acted only as possible deterrents for future acts. The Government was therefore invited to explore all possible solutions, including amending its legislation, in full consultation with the social partners concerned, to ensure effective protection for all workers against acts of anti-union discrimination.
The case of Denmark concerned part-time work arrangements. The restrictions on collective bargaining over such matters was not only opposed by the major workers' central organization, but was also not approved by the leading employers' organization.
The Committee considered that, if the Government deemed it necessary to change a system which apparently met with a wide consensus of both workers' and employers' organizations, it would have been preferable to obtain their agreement. The Committee therefore requested the Government to resume thorough consultations on part-time work issues with all parties concerned, with a view to finding a negotiated solution acceptable to all.
In a similar case, Sweden adopted legislation as part of a reform of the pension system, which invalidated as from January 2003 any remaining clauses in already negotiated collective agreements which set out a compulsory retirement age younger than 67. It further prohibited the negotiation of any such clauses as from 1 September 2001.
The Committee, while not competent to examine the Government's decision to raise the age for compulsory retirement, considered that, in so doing, the Government had unilaterally modified the content of signed collective agreements, contrary to the principles of collective bargaining. It requested the Government to take appropriate remedial measures so that all agreements on retirement age previously negotiated would continue to be implemented until their actual expiry date.
As for future collective bargaining, the Committee reached the same conclusions as in the case of Denmark that such major changes should have been determined with the agreement of the parties concerned, and requested the Government to resume thorough consultations with a view to finding a negotiated solution, acceptable to all.