Violations of Trade Union Rights in Europe

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions

Introduction
ALBANIA C87/C98
BELARUS C87/C98
BELGIUM C87/C98
BULGARIA C87/C98
CROATIA C87/C98
CZECH REPUBLIC C87/C98
GERMANY C87/C98
HUNGARY C87/C98
KOSOVO
LITHUANIA C87/C98
ROMANIA C87/C98
RUSSIAN FEDERATION C87/C98
SERBIA
SPAIN C87/C98
UKRAINE C87/C98
UNITED KINGDOM C87/C98

Introduction

There was no let-up in the hostility shown by Central and Eastern European governments towards unions.

The most disturbing development was in Romania. On 21 March, in a sinister reminder of days gone by, 200 police in full riot gear attacked strikers at a paper factory, using police vehicles to smash down the doors, and fighting a pitched battle that lasted for over an hour.

In Belarus, President Lukashenko also betrayed how much he missed the old days. His government mounted a ferocious crackdown against the country's independent trade unions, and he personally ordered the arrest of a delegation from the Polish trade union, Solidarnosc, who were visiting fellow trade unionists at a factory in the capital, Minsk. The Polish delegation - which included the union president, Marian Krzaklewski - found itself being welcomed by police armed with machine guns, and security officials with cameras.

The Bulgarian government refused to talk to the unions about the structural adjustment programme it introduced in line with the demands of the IMF and World Bank - even though Bulgaria was on the brink of economic and social collapse, and the government clearly was in need of help and advice.

The chaos in Russia continued unabated. Strikes increased again in 1996 as the economy deteriorated. Workers were forced to work for nothing for months on end, or face the closure of their workplace. There were hunger strikes over the mass non-payment of wages.

The year saw the 12th anniversary of the United Kingdom ban on trade unions at the intelligence-gathering centre, GCHQ. There was no sign that the government was ready to honour its international obligations and lift the ban.

ALBANIA C87/C98

The transition to civil society in Albania has been understandably difficult. As social discontent increased so did the government’s dictatorial tendencies. Numerous irregularities were registered in the 1996 elections.

The government refused to talk to the national union centres, reneging on an agreement to hold twice-yearly discussions on economic problems.

The authorities also encouraged the formation of splinter groups and fake unions and pressured union members to join them. Albanian television was used to promote unrepresentative unions.

The KSSH union centre said that members of its affiliated teachers’ union were discriminated against in employment, depending on which political party they supported.

A new labour code which came into effect at the end of 1995 introduced trade union pluralism, although it had existed in practice for a number of years. The new code provided for the establishment of a National Labour Council which was set up in December.

The National Labour Council was scheduled to discuss amendments to the new code. Unions said that they had not been consulted about the law. They criticised it for reducing protection against anti-union discrimination and failing to promote and encourage collective bargaining.

In May, the KSSH said that permission to hold a May Day demonstration had been refused because the police were too busy.

The BSPSH union centre and the KSSH went on a one-hour warning strike on 16 September and a 24-hour general strike on 4 October over rises in bread and fuel prices decreed unilaterally by the government in July. The government had withdrawn state subsidies on these goods in line with its agreement with the International Monetary Fund. The unions demanded compensation.

During the 4 October strike, some workers, particularly in the telecommunications sector, were threatened with the sack. The Minister of Education said that teachers would not be paid – in breach of the law.

In April, workers at the Austrian-owned Hotel Rogner in Tirana formed a union and decided to join the BSPSH. The hotel director sacked the five executive committee members of the union. The union shop steward at the hotel was beaten up by the secret police.

BELARUS C87/C98

At the beginning of the year, enterprise directors began to implement Presidential Decree 336 of September, 1995, which had been issued after a strike in the Minsk metro.

The decree suspended all activities of the Free Trade Union of Belarus (SPB), as well as those of the Minsk metro branch of the former official union, the FPB.

This meant that the SPB could not sign collective agreements or collect union dues, and was not entitled to office space or meeting facilities in enterprises.

President Lukashenko had issued a legal order confirming the decree in December, 1995 – defying a court ruling that the decree was unconstitutional.

The decree also said that unions taking part in strikes at enterprises listed in Legal Order 158 were to be banned. Although the law grants metro workers the right to strike, Legal Order 158, issued by the government in March, 1995, banned strikes in the Minsk metro and other transport services, including railways; radio and television; air traffic control; telecommunications, and the petroleum, chemical, and food industries.

Decree 336 added to the obstacles blocking independent trade unions. In many cases, enterprise directors had paid union dues of SPB members to the former official union. They paid SPB members lower salaries, threatened them with dismissal, and refused to negotiate with them.

A collective bargaining law passed in 1993 restricted the bargaining rights of independent unions. It allowed enterprise management to negotiate local agreements with the workers' collective, unless a union represents at least half of the workforce. The former official trade unions still exercised control over social functions usually performed by the state.

Workers sacked during the metro strike had still not been reinstated at the beginning of 1996 owing to long delays in court procedures. By September, 50 of the 73 unionists dismissed had got their jobs back.

There were reports that the government was about to ban the SPB for publishing an allegedly defamatory article against President Lukashenko. The SPB was suffering a financial crisis through losing money when the banks collapsed. Pressure was also being put on the FPB to evict the SPB from its headquarters in Minsk, which belonged to the FPB's regional structures.

There was a crackdown on the streets as well. On 12 January, police broke up a local union meeting in the Minsk metro after they were called by in by the management. The meeting was considered illegal under President Lukashenko's Resolution confirming Decree 336.

On 14 May, police arrested Marian Krzaklewski, president of the Polish trade union NSZZ Solidarnosc, International Secretary Andrzej Adamczyk, Eugeniusz Polmanski; and one other colleague, while they were visiting the SPB.

The delegation had planned to visit a Minsk factory but the permit to visit the factory was withdrawn without explanation. The Deputy Minister of Industry had written to the SPB saying that any meeting with workers should take place outside the factory premises. As the union had received their permit from the factory manager himself they went to the factory. They were met by police armed with sub-machine guns and security officers with video cameras. The factory manager then said that the permit was withdrawn.

The delegation held a meeting with around 50 workers outside the factory in a nearby school stadium, during which they were arrested – on the personal orders of President Lukashenko. They were all declared persona non grata, and deported.

On the following day, the police went to SPB headquarters and served a summons on the union president, Gennady Bykov, and its vice-president and president of the metalworkers' union, P. Moyseyevich, for taking part in the meeting with the Polish delegation. If found guilty, Bykov could face a minimum of six months imprisonment because of his previous detention in 1995.

In fact, Bykov and Moyseyevich had not gone to the meeting at the school stadium. They had gone to talk to the factory director.

The Deputy Ministry of Justice subsequently informed the SPB that they had received instructions from the presidency to implement Decree 336 and would be closing all SPB offices.

On 16 October, police arrested ten leaders and representatives of the Belarus Independent Union, a member union of the Congress of Democratic Trade Unions of Belarus, including the union president, Victor Babayed, in Soligorsk. (The Congress had been formed in September after a merger between the SPG and other unions.) They were fined for taking part in an illegal gathering. The men had intended to march to Minsk for a demonstration on 19 October calling for democracy, and protesting at unpaid wages and other economic grievances.

Later the same day, a detachment of the Soligorsk police reinforced by the Minsk KGB and special forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, stopped the group and again arrested six of them and another trade unionist. Victor Babayed; Nikolai Zimin, the NPG vice-Chairman, and Olkchovskyi, an NPG member from Mozyr, spent several days in solitary confinement. The men went on hunger strike.

On 21 October, they appeared in court in Minsk on charges of illegal gathering and were released without charge. After being released, they continued to march. In a television speech, President Lukashenko claimed they had been arrested for drunkenness.

On 7 November, the population of Belarus voted in favour of a referendum called by President Lukashenko on amendments to the constitution. The changes extended the president’s term of office, changed election procedures, created a second chamber of parliament composed of presidential appointees, and limited the powers of the Constitutional Court by making half the judges presidential appointees and turning the court into a purely advisory body.

The SPB and other democratic forces strongly opposed the changes. They feared that democratic unions would be squeezed out of existence as President Lukashenko took on increasingly dictatorial powers.

BELGIUM C87/C98

Employers and the judiciary continued to undermine the right to strike. Employers took cases to civil courts instead of labour courts by alleging violence during strikes and pickets. The courts made rulings without giving a hearing to the unions. In some cases, unions were threatened with massive fines if they continued to strike or picket.

Although in 1996 this occurred less than in the past few years, it remains a problem. Parliamentary bills drawn up to address the issue have come to nothing,

At the same time, there have been proposals to oblige unions to register under the law, which they are not currently required to do. This would give them a legal personality and render them vulnerable to prosecution in the courts.

BULGARIA C87/C98

The government refused to talk to the unions about the harsh structural adjustment programme it introduced in line with the demands of the IMF and World Bank. Unions walked out of the Tripartite Council in May and on several subsequent occasions because the government ignored them. The government also continued to co-opt unrepresentative unions onto the Council.

Industrial restructuring led to the closure of 64 major public enterprises and the denial of credits to 70 others. Around 50,000 workers lost their jobs. Prices rose dramatically.

The collapse of the banking system prevented unions from accessing their bank accounts. A ministerial decree said that only half the amounts which had been in bank accounts could be recovered - which paralysed the activities of some union federations.

The Podkrepa and CITUB union centres organised a demonstration on 30 May against the government's economic policies which they said had brought Bulgaria to the brink of economic and social collapse.

Starting on 4 June, they organised mass rallies, demonstrations and strikes all over the country with the participation of other trade unions, including the NPU and ADTU union centres.

CITUB organised an hour-long national warning strike and protest actions on 7 June.

The government blamed the unions for creating tensions amongst the population, and the prime minister accused them of sowing confusion and panic.

In several cases, bans were imposed on the warning strike. At the "Harmonia" enterprise in Teteven, the director threatened to attack CITUB's co-ordinator, Stoyan Philipov, and the manager of the "Sokol" joint stock company in Peshtera forbade any protest action. The manager of the "Etavia" enterprise in Kyustendil banned workers from attending a planned demonstration in front of the Council of Ministers building. He threatened to sack anyone who took part, and refused to let them leave on buses for Sofia.

In September, the Constitutional Court decided not to amend certain articles of the Act for Conciliation of Labour Disputes which bans strikes in the health care sector.

Local protest actions and strikes took place as social tension escalated. On 15 October, Podkrepa and CITUB organised a rally in Sofia. The state-controlled media imposed a black-out on major social events and trade union activities.

CITUB held a national strike on 4 December. The television coverage of the strike gave out false information and discredited CITUB.

Unions accused employers of violating collective agreements and labour laws at all levels and said that more workers were being sacked illegally.

Amendments to the labour code in 1996 strengthened collective bargaining and brought procedures more into line with ILO standards. It became no longer necessary for a union to acquire the status of "national representation" to bargain at plant level.

Labour law prohibits strikes in the public health, energy, communications, and water supply sectors. Trade unions are banned from engaging in political activities, and can be dissolved if they promote political aims.

CROATIA C87/C98

On 3 January, the government banned wage rises in 1996 for workers in public enterprises and joint-stock companies. Since most of industry was still in state hands, this meant the majority of workers could not bargain over wages.

Two months earlier the new prime minister had promised a new era of social dialogue as well as government support for collective bargaining.

Five trade union organisations established the Croatian Trade Union Bloc and called on the government to talk to them. It refused, and the UATUC union centre organised protests in February.

On 14 February, around 100 UATUC executive members marched through the capital, Zagreb, towards the government building to lobby the prime minister. When they reached the central main city square, special police forces arrived and stopped them from going any further. The prime minister sent a message saying that that he was too busy to talk to them.

On 21 February, UATUC organised demonstrations of about 7,000 regional and local shop stewards in Zagreb. UATUC said that although in general media coverage of union activities had improved, state-controlled television accused them of anti-state activity.

Several dozen trade union solidarity letters supporting UATUC’s demands were sent to the Croatian authorities by European trade unions, including the independent Serbian union, Nezavisnost. Subsequently, the Croatian prime minister spoke on the main television news and accused UATUC of "co-operation with Belgrade".

In February, the government also accused a railway strike committee of being enemies of the state and of trying to overthrow the authorities.

In March, the Zagreb Commercial Court banned a strike by a union affiliated to the URSH union centre which had begun on 8 January at the bus company, "Croatiabus".

In the same month, the government published a bill on associations which violated a 1993 agreement on distributing the assets of the former state-controlled unions. The bill provided for union property to be temporarily sequestrated by the state and transferred back into union ownership within one year. It was expected that the government would determine the criteria for dividing the property. The bill passed its first reading in parliament.

UATUC, who owned 50 percent of the property, submitted an amendment removing trade unions from the coverage of the bill. It said that the government had brought in the bill in retaliation for UATUC protest demonstrations.

On 18 October, a final draft bill was submitted to parliament for adoption. The government delayed the adoption of the bill after UATUC announced a protest action in Zagreb for 7 November,.

On 15 May, Croatia's Supreme Court banned a strike by UATUC and HUS affiliates in the Plobest company in Ploce. The unions were striking over unpaid wages and health and safety issues. At the end of March, a county court had ruled against banning the strike.

The Supreme Court ruled that the strike was illegal on the grounds that it did not relate to the signing, amending or renewing of a collective agreement. It argued that a strike could not take place over a legally-regulated right, and said that strikes over delayed wage payment were illegal.

The unions appealed against the decision in the constitutional court. No ruling had been handed down by the end of the year - in contrast with the prompt ruling to ban the strike.

In May, a country court refused to ban a strike by the UATUC metalworkers' union in the enterprise "Celik" in Krizevci. On 11 July, the Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal because it was over unpaid salaries. The union filed a case in the constitutional court.

At the end of November, the authorities tried to break a strike by the Railwaymen's Trade Union of Croatia over the signing of a collective agreement. Management was told to draw up lists of strikers who were then threatened with the sack.

The authorities refused to negotiate, despite an agreement they had made earlier in the year setting a schedule for bargaining. The state-controlled media waged a propaganda campaign against the strikers, and some of the strikers were suspended. The management tried to bribe a union leader to call the strike off.

The authorities tried to bring in strike-breakers, and the strike was banned on 9 December which meant that strikers could be sacked and the union would be liable for damages. The Supreme Court confirmed the ban on 17 December, saying that the railways were an essential service. The union described the decision as political and claimed the government had influenced the railway management not to negotiate.

The management said they would sack the 24 strike organisers and claimed massive damages against the union. The railway workers began a second strike on 28 December and obtained an agreement that strike organisers would not be dismissed. Croatian Railways began court proceedings claiming damages of DM 6,170,000.

The government delayed setting up a Socio-Economic Council, despite its being provided for under the 1995 labour code.

Some branch unions maintain that the largest employers’ association is influenced by the state. It refuses to disclose its members, and is not able to engage in genuine collective bargaining, or function as a member of a tripartite bargaining structure.

The Voce Export-Import company in Zagreb refused to deduct union dues, even though it was obliged to do so under the collective agreement. In the Viroviticko-Podravaka region, unions said that although the employers deducted union dues from workers they did not transfer them to the unions and kept them. This took place at the Ratarstvo factories in Slatina, Visnjica; uzor IMKO in Slatina; UKUS Virovitica Klasje in Slatina.

The UATUC-affiliated EKN union reported employer hostility at Kemika, Zagreb; Karbon, Zagreb; Labud, Zagreb; and Meplast in Cakovec. In Labud, the EKN said that the employer favoured a rival union and intimated most workers into joining it by threatening to sack EKN members. The EKN shop steward, Antonio Hajdin, was sacked, and EKN took the case to court.

The commercial union, STH, reported union-busting tactics and discrimination, saying that a shop-steward was transferred to a distant branch of the Prima department store so that he had to travel six hours a day to and from work.

Many union officials were sacked for organising strikes. Misko Puljic and 13 other workers were sacked at the Obnova factory in Osijek for organising a strike. They filed a court case and got their jobs back.

Zvonimir Kovac and Drazen Plesa were sacked for being members of the strike committee at Osjecka tvornica koza-a in Osijek. They were eventually reinstated after negotiations.

Seasonal workers at the Voce enterprise in Orahovica were sacked for striking. At the Tisljar strojevi I dijelovi enterprise in Krapinsko-Zagorska, the shop-steward, Milan Oraic, and 35 other workers were sacked because they went on strike on 8 August.

The following trade union officials were intimidated and sacked: Marica Novosel in the Habulin enterprise in Poznanovec; Vera Zlabur Bivol and 64 others at the enterprise Montero in Oroslavlje; Martin Verkovic, a member of the PPDIV food and tobacco union in Mednik, in Zupanja; Marijan Ljubic, a PPDIV official also in Mednik; Ljerka Kopfer, a shop steward in Poljodar in Daruvar, together with 12 others; Zoran Haspl, in Ribopromet in Daruvar; Ljiljana Dojkic, a shop steward for the commercial union of Croatia, in the Muzicka naklada, Zabreb; Stjepan Sovic at Kiosk in Osijek; Ana Knezevic, a president of the commercial union; Jelenko Peti of Atlas in Dubrovnik; and Mare Mojas from the Hotel Jadran, Dubrovnik.

CZECH REPUBLIC C87/C98

The government remained hostile to the trade unions. There were no negotiations in the national tripartite body for most of the year. For the second successive year, a tripartite General Agreement on minimum wages and conditions of employment was not signed.

Proposals to introduce a new labour code were supported by the CMKOS union centre. The current code dates from 1965 and has been amended 19 times. However, the CMKOS strongly opposed an attempt to incorporate a substantial part of labour legislation under civil law.

The anti-union law on state employees, first introduced into parliament by the government in 1993, which restricted the trade union rights of over 60,000 public servants, remained on the government's agenda and was being redrafted.

At the end of the year, there were reports that the Ministry of Labour was drawing up a draft law which drastically restricted the right to strike.

Employers took their cue from the government and often refused to co-operate with unions or to negotiate collective agreements. Industry-wide bargaining was discouraged by employers and the authorities alike and most bargaining took place at company level. The CMKOS said that the number of employees covered by agreements was falling every year. Public servants cannot bargain at industry level.

Employers also continued to discourage workers from joining unions. Some were intimidated into resigning from unions in order to keep their jobs. Many employers inserted clauses in employment contracts forbidding workers from joining unions. In small enterprises in particular, they interfered in internal trade union affairs to try and destroy unions.

There were also reports that employers continued to ignore provisions of the law, such as the right of unions to monitor the observance of labour law, as well as other provisions governing trade union rights in the enterprise.

GERMANY C87/C98

Public sector workers who have civil service status, including teachers, are not allowed to strike.

HUNGARY C87/C98

Violations of trade union rights at workplace level increased in 1996. Unions said employers victimised and discriminated against union officials and members, particularly in the large foreign-owned sector, where organising was more difficult.

The harassment went unpunished because of ambiguities in the law and disputed interpretations. Enforcement proved difficult because the labour courts were overburdened and proceedings could take several years. In particular, provisions protecting union officials against anti-union discrimination were not enforced.

Instead of firing a union official, an employer would give veiled warnings saying that the unionist's job would no longer exist. Rather than wait to be given notice, a worker would sign a mutual agreement where both parties ask for the job to end. In the case of a union official, union approval would no longer be required.

Union officials were also isolated or expelled from workplaces. Dues were withheld and unions were forced to meet outside workplaces. Unions reported non-observances of collective agreements and obstructions to the right to strike.

Many workers were employed without employment contracts and there were reports that some foreign companies required women to undergo a gynaecological examination to ensure they were not pregnant when being employed.

A new law was introduced during the year improving labour inspection and increasing fines for employers who did not comply with labour regulations.

The foreign-owned company, Piszkei Paper, sacked Ferenc Komoroczki, chairman of the local branch of the Hungarian Paper Workers' union, and vice-president of the national branch union, after the union had organised a strike. He was also barred from entering the company's premises. The company intimidated other workers by threatening to close down.

The dispute began in 1993 when the company was privatised. Management refused to fulfil the privatisation contract which set a deadline for the conclusion of a collective agreement and co-operation between employer and employees. There were cuts in social benefits and no wage increases.

Collective negotiations finally broke down on 26 February, 1996.

In June, the Labour Court found that the dismissal and the ban from the factory was illegal, but did not reinstate Ferenc Komoroczki at the employer's request. It ordered the company to pay him lost wages.

The union appealed against his ban from the company premises and on 18 September, a court ruled that the ban was legal. On 22 November, the court rejected Komoroczki's appeal for reinstatement.

The union appealed to the Supreme Court at the end of the year.

At the US-owned United Technologies Automotive Hungary, there was no union or works council. The management subsequently created a committee and appointed its members. When a group of employees began to form a union, the union leaders and some of the founding members were sacked a week after the union had been formed, on the pretext that the workforce was being reduced. They were subsequently escorted home by security guards.

In April, 1996, a labour court found that they had been dismissed because of union activities and ordered their reinstatement. The court dismissed the company's proposal that it should give the unionists money instead of reinstating them. The company appealed against the decision and approached the unionists before the case came to court. It offered them money to request the annulment of the labour court judgement. They accepted, fearing further victimisation if they returned to the same company. The union ceased to exist.

KOSOVO

Serbia continued to rule the province of Kosovo from Belgrade after abolishing its political autonomy in 1990.

It introduced discrimination against Albanians who made up 90 per cent of the population of the province. The Serbian parliament passed over 36 discriminatory laws and 470 emergency legal orders. A 1990 law which authorised mass dismissals of Albanians from civil service, teaching and other jobs left only 40,000 Albanians, out of a population of some two million, with jobs. Sacked workers were often thrown out of their homes as well. They were replaced in their jobs and homes by Serbs and Montenegrins, and more recently, Serbs from Krajina.

The Serbian administration and its security forces continued to persecute leaders and members of the provinces' independent trade union the BSPK, which was registered in 1991. The BSPK cannot hold meetings in enterprises and institutions, nor can it initiate or sign collective agreements. Its leaders have been denied visas to attend international trade union meetings and their passports have been taken away.

Most BSPK members have lost their jobs and their families have no social and health care protection. Many have fled the country.

The Albanian Teachers' Association said the authorities were still persecuting Albanian teachers as part of a campaign to stamp out teaching in the Albanian language. The Association said that since September, 1995, intimidation and ill-treatment had intensified. Teachers had been imprisoned for conducting illegal educational activities. The police had arrested them in their classrooms, beating them brutally in front of pupils. Many were tortured during interrogation.

On 3 June, the Serbian police arrested Pal Krasniqi, the secretary of the secondary schoolteachers' union, and jailed him for 60 days. He had served a similar sentence in 1995 for holding a union meeting.

On 11 July, police arrested Dr. Agim Hyseni, the chairman of UESCK, the union of education, science and culture. He was held for eight hours and tortured.

On 10 December, Feriz Blakcori, a teacher and union member at the Zenel Hajdini elementary school in Prishtina, died after being tortured by Prishtina police. He had been arrested the previous day after a raid on his home by 40 policemen in which a hand gun was found.

Since 1990, between 3,500-4,000 Albanian police officers have been sacked for refusing to accept and recognise measures introduced by the Serbian regime. Their jobs were given to Serbs and Montenegrins. The Albanian officers formed the Independent Trade Union of Former Police Officers, which the Serb authorities have tried to destroy.

The union said that the Serbian police had continued to intimidate them and their families throughout 1996 by long interrogations, physical abuse, home searches, eviction.

During the year, 21 union members were detained and interrogated; 65 were summoned to police stations and interrogated; 14 were beaten; 51 were intimidated and warned to stop their union activities; and three families were evicted from their apartments.

One member of the union, Sefer Hasanaj killed himself after being tortured by the police.

LITHUANIA C87/C98

Unions said that employers persistently broke the labour law and the government's labour inspectors were either unable or unwilling to enforce it. There is no labour court system, and there were long delays in taking cases to the ordinary courts.

Lithuania's labour code dates from 1972 and is inconsistent with new laws adopted since 1991. It was reported that a new code was being drawn up with union participation. Unions were trying to amend the law to improve protection of union officials against dismissal.

Under the 1991 laws, a union must have 30 founding members or at least 20 per cent of employees in an enterprise to form a union. At least three employees must act as union founder-members.

Civil and public servants cannot bargain collectively. There are serious restrictions on the right to strike and complex and lengthy pre-strike procedures. These include the establishment of a conciliation commission, arbitration procedures, or, if no agreement is reached, an arbitration court. Two-thirds of workers must vote in favour before a strike can take place. A loophole in the law allows strike leaders to be prosecuted. In some sectors of the economy, unions must give 21 days strike notice, instead of the usual seven days.

Many unions kept their membership lists secret from employers and could not collect dues by check-off. Where the check-off system existed, employer soften refused to transfer the dues to the unions.

Unions also reported that local authorities delayed union registration or even changed union statutes. Union leaders and members were persecuted and sacked. In the Koordinate enterprise, employees were forced to leave a branch union of the LTUU union centre. Those who refused were either not paid, forced to take unpaid leave or sacked. Branch union leaders were prevented from entering the enterprise and meeting union members.

The director of the Metalu Komercija enterprise sacked the chairman of the LTUU branch, J. Paliokas, for forming a union and asking to see the accounts of the enterprise.

In March, the director of the agricultural school in Kupiskis, asked the authorities to cancel the registration of a branch of the LWU union centre in the school. He made false allegations about the union. In 1995, he had slandered two union members, attacked one of them and illegally sacked two others.

The authorities threatened to suspend the union but the conflict was settled after the union put the record straight. The authorities failed to take action against the director who continued to violate union rights.

On 7 May, at the jointly-owned company Elnias in the Siauliai region, the employer suspended the collective agreement and refused to negotiate with the LWU union. The union went to court.

On 5 June, Vanda Lidien, an LWU-affiliated union shop steward at the jointly-owned company Lutum in Drasuciai, in the Siauliai region, was illegally sacked after being disciplined. The union demanded her reinstatement, and she took the case to court. On 4 July, another LWU member was illegally sacked.

The victimisation had begun after the union had gone to court over unpaid wages. The union said six of its members had been forced to sell their blood to look after their families. Non-payment of wages became chronic in 1996 and in February, under union pressure, the government introduced a law imposing fines on companies which paid late wages.

State officials made a check-up at the Lutum enterprise and found that the company had enough money in its bank account to pay the workers, but was choosing to make other payments.

At the Bus Depot in Kupiskis, negotiations between union and management had been going on since the end of 1995 over several issues and except for wages, agreement had almost been reached. The mayor threatened the leaders of the LWU union and said that the union, and even the company, would be dissolved unless the union accepted the wage offer. The LWU picketed local council offices on 24 October.

The director sacked three union leaders, Rima Dzikaviciene, Vaclovas Benesevicius, and the union president, Margarita Lapeniene, saying that the sackings were because of restructuring - though this only started a long time after the sackings.

There was no solution to the problem of distributing the assets of the former state-run union. A 1993 law had established a trust which was granted ownership of the assets and charged with transferring them to emerging trade unions within five years. The system broke down in 1995.

ROMANIA C87/C98

The Economic and Social Council, a forum for national tripartite consultations, had still not been set-up - after six years of discussions. The criteria for union representation on the council remained a major problem. The government took advantage of the situation to promote disunity and conflict between union confederations.

The labour law has led to the fragmentation of the union movement. There is no procedure for determining the representative status of unions, which has created conflicts over representation in national tripartite bodies and in collective bargaining. The authorities and employers have used small and unrepresentative unions to undermine legitimate unions.

Only 60 workers are required to set up a trade union confederation. This has led to the creation of over 20 national confederations, and has resulted in major problems for collective bargaining.

Employers have been able to evade some clauses of the law and there are no sanctions against employers who break agreements. In some cases, the authorities have refused to register collective agreements and have tried to make unions renounce rights contained in them. There is no requirement to publish a collective agreement.

In 1994 the government had agreed to revise labour laws and if necessary, draw up new ones. The unions said that because 1996 was an election year, all social legislation was forgotten, except the budget.

In October, 1996, just before the November elections, the government introduced amendments to the 1991 collective bargaining law into the senate, wich established criteria for determing the representative status of unions. Trade unions opposed the provisions of the bill, in particular requirements for proving their membership figures. The amendments were not passed.

Under other labour laws in force, the obligation to have 15 workers before a union can be formed prevents unions being created in much of the private sector, as most private companies have fewer than 15 workers. Many companies ban unions from organising, and have included no-union clauses in collective agreements. Companies frequently create management-sponsored unions which are quickly registered by the authorities.

The law interferes into the free election of union members by requiring them to be employed in the enterprise.

Numerous restrictions on the right to strike mean that organising a legal strike is almost impossible. Lengthy and cumbersome procedures must precede a strike, including the submission of grievances to government-sponsored conciliation.

The Minister of Labour can impose compulsory arbitration if a strike has lasted over 20 days and its continuation "is likely to affect the interests of the general economy or can put in danger humanitarian interest".

The authorities can use bureaucratic delays and administrative loopholes to declare strikes illegal, which can lead to union leaders being sacked. Employers can apply to the Supreme Court for a 90-day strike suspension on grounds of "interests of the national economy". The law imposes a financial liability on strikers and union organisers who do not meet the legal conditions for starting a strike. Court rulings on the legality of strikes nearly always find against the unions.

The government considers the following sectors as essential to the national interest: health care; teaching, energy; transport; telecommunications and broadcasting sectors, as well as public supply which includes bread, milk and meat, In these sectors, one third of normal activity must be maintained during a strike.

Up to six month's imprisonment can be imposed for calling a strike which disregards certain parts of the law.

Unions in the private sector have reported that factory managers used the privatisation process to destroy unions - in many cases it led to the dissolution of unions.

A loophole in the law allows workers to be dismissed for misbehaviour at work. There are no labour courts, and workers who are unfairly dismissed, or who are victims of other violations of trade union rights, have little chance of going to court to redress their grievances because it takes so long for a case to come to trial.

There was one notable legal success in 1996. In January, the Supreme Court turned down a government application for a 90-day strike suspension order to stop a strike by the independent union at Bucharest airport. The union had announced a two-hour warning strike which would be followed by a general strike to call for wage increases and the negotiation of a collective agreement. Workers at 14 other airports planned to join the strike.

Also in January, the authorities banned a 20-day strike in a textile company, Gama, which began in December, 1995, and submitted it to compulsory arbitration. The company sacked nearly 600 strikers including the union leaders. On 22 January, the factory was surrounded by mounted police. When the mainly women workers, tried to go into the factory, they were knocked about by the police.

In February, workers at the Rodae company in Craiova, partly-owned by the Korean Daewoo Corporation, carried on striking in defiance of a court ruling that their strike was illegal.

The USLM Bucharest Metro Workers' Union, affiliated to the BNS union centre, went on strike in March over management’s refusal to implement an agreement signed with the union in 1995 on wages and working conditions. The union, which had previously postponed the strike to negotiate with management, was also campaigning for recognition of occupational diseases contracted through working underground. The press called the strikers criminals and said that the strike undermined democracy.

The union said that the prime minister had stopped the transport minister from settling the dispute, although the union had found a compromise solution. The prime minister declared the strike illegal without getting a court ruling.

He threatened to sack the strike leaders and make them financially liable for the strike, and said he would close down the metro for one month and sack 6,500 metro workers unless they signed a "statement of obedience" saying they were satisfied with wages and working conditions.

The prime minister also lied about the gross salaries of the union members.

On 8 March the two-day strike was declared illegal by the Supreme Court of Justice. The unionists were given no time to prepare their case and were no defence in a three-minute trial.

On 11 March, the government threatened to sack all workers who didn't return to work. Over half the workforce had already signed letters of resignation because of management threats. The strike had been called off on 6 March by union leaders before the court rulings declaring it illegal and banning it for 90 days. Hundreds of workers continued a wildcat strike.

On 14 March the government, through the enterprise Metrorex, demanded that metro workers sign a declaration saying they would go back to work, or face the sack. Most workers signed under duress and many of them were still sacked. The government later said it would reinstate them if they went back to work.

The police intimidated protesting workers. An hourly roll call was instigated in workplaces and absent workers were dismissed. Although a meeting was arranged between the union and the president of the Senate, the prime minister prevented the union president from attending.

Strikes organised by the railway workers' union and the union of Black Sea Port Workers were also declared illegal in March.

On 20 March, early in the morning, around 200 police attacked workers belonging to two CNSLR-FRATIA affiliated unions, on strike at the Celrom factory in Drobeta Turnu Severin, which produces paper and cellulose. The police were dressed in protective clothing and armed with batons. They used their vehicles to break down the factory door. They went in the factory and attacked the workers for an hour. Many workers were seriously injured. One woman spent several days in hospital.

The Supreme Court suspended the strike for 50 days without any proof that it affected life or health, or the national economy.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION C87/C98

Strikes increased again in 1996 as the economy deteriorated. There were hunger strikes over the mass non-payment of wages. Workers were forced to work for nothing for many months - blackmailed with the threat of plant closure - or sent on forced vacations.

Unions said that the government was doing its utmost to divide the union movement.

The FNPR union centre organised an All-Russia day of action on 5 November to protest against the non-payment of wages and pensions, and cuts in social benefits. The union said that central and local government and many employers were breaking national, industrial or regional level agreements on pay and working conditions. It also said that the government persisted in submitting draft bills to parliament on industrial relations and social and economic issues without consulting unions.

The government passed three new laws in 1995 on unions' right to organise, bargain collectively and strike - the first substantial changes to the labour code since the Soviet era.

Overall, the new laws extended basic rights. However the complete lack of a reliable system of law enforcement limited their effect.

Workers in the interior ministry, custom officers, judges and public prosecutors, the tax police, the military and the security services, and rail transport cannot join unions.

Strikes by public employees are banned.

The newer union centres, the KTR and VKT, said that the laws discouraged their development and tended to support the traditional unions. They cited the criteria for obtaining national status and collective bargaining arrangements, ownership of trade union assets, and management of social security funds as examples, saying that many workers only paid their union dues to the traditional unions to get social security cover.

Newer unions also reported harassment by the administration, local authorities, and public prosecutors.

The state continued to exercise rigid control over unions' finances. State tax and statistical agencies required quarterly and annual reports; taxed income and expenditure; and regulated union's financial activities through numerous laws and local documents.

Employers obstructed unionisation, especially in newly-created commercial organisations. When they hired workers, they told them they would not be able to join unions. Some state enterprises also banned trade unions.

Enterprise managers often refused to transfer checked-off union dues to the unions and used the funds themselves to solve their own financial problems.

There were reports in some privatised plants that workers, including union committee members, were being sacked for union activities. However, the FNPR said that court action generally led to the restoration of unions and the reinstatement of illegally-sacked workers.

There is no system of labour courts in Russia. The newer unions said that in a few cases they had been able to use the courts to redress violations, but also said that court decisions were often arbitrary. They criticised them for taking too long; refusing to accept, or dismissing appeals; or failing to enforce decisions.

Despite non-payment of wages, there were again reports of workers being intimidated not to strike by promises of wage and bonus payments. Strikers were often threatened with the sack; redundancy; denial of housing; and other threats.

On 22 February, in the port of Novorossiysk, 14 armed officials of the regional transport police shut down the local offices of the Seafarers' Union of Russia (SUR). During the next few days, the officials made a thorough search of union documents, apparently looking for financial information. The union said that it had been harassed by the authorities on several occasions previously. The search badly disrupted the work of both the union and the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) inspector.

At the end of March, staff of the SUR and ITF were still being interrogated, and the union said its bank account had been frozen. No charges were ever brought against the union or its officials.

In March in Lipetsk, members of the independent union, SOTSPROF, went on strike at a tractor factory because their wages had not been paid since the previous December - though the management continued to be paid. The public prosecutor began criminal proceedings against the strike organiser, Igor Cherkasov. Union premises were searched and documents were taken.

SOTSPROF said that enterprise directors had refused to recognise its affiliated unions. This happened at an electro-mechanical factory in Novosibirsk, and in Tomsk, where the manager of a furniture factory refused to recognise a new union and sacked its members.

In Lipetsk on 1 July, SOTSPROF picketed the administration building over discrimination against its members, who were charged more for holidays and other benefits than members of the traditional unions. The newer unions said it was common for enterprise management to make their members pay more for social benefits such as subsidised goods and food products, vouchers for recreational facilities, company housing, and annual leave.

In Krasnoyarsk Kray, the management of an aviation company tried to force three unionised pilots to accept jobs as repairmen, drivers or janitors.

On 29 August, SOTSPROF reported an attempt on the life of Anatoliy Ivanov the president of the AutoWAS (Lada) union in Tolyatti. He was shot four times and had to go into intensive care. He had been beaten up earlier in the year after attending a meeting of the Human Rights Movement in Moscow. Two other union activists, Sergey Erschov and Peter Zolotaryov, had also been attacked. The union said that it believed the attempt on Ivanov's life was linked to the union's demand for prompt wage payments and its participation in the regional election campaign. The union said that security forces had failed to investigate previous attacks.

In October, Moscow metro workers belong to SOTSPROF said that the management refused to deal with them. Management told union members that if they did not quit the union they would not pass their test to be a train driver. They were also forced into taking the test after their shifts - which is prohibited.

SERBIA

Harsh new laws further restricting the right to strike and giving employers unlimited powers in enterprises, were adopted on 4 July, 1996. The independent union, Nezavisnost, said that employers were more openly repressive of independent unions than ever before. As in the past, the authorities approved of, or at times, instigated this persecution.

The Law on Elements of Labour Relations gave managers unlimited powers over contracts of employment, hiring and appointment to certain jobs, and termination of employment. It deprived workers of the right to appeal against a management decision within the enterprise. The only recourse would be to go to court or arbitration.

The Federal Law on Strikes introduced restrictive strike provisions in "enterprises of general social interest". Over 60 per cent of enterprises fall into this category.

The law allows employers to define the minimum service to be maintained during a strike. This resulted in strikes being virtually banned in half of the economy.

It banned strikers from gathering outside workplaces.

Although the law says that employers cannot hire new workers to replace those on strike, it then gives certain circumstances in which new workers can be engaged. These include where it is necessary to ensure a minimum service or to fulfil international obligations.

Amendments made to the Serbian criminal code made in 1994 created a new offence - "abuse of the right to strike" - which carried penalties of up to one year in prison or a fine for an illegal strike.

The state-controlled union centre, the Council of Trade Union Federations of Serbia, (SSS) enjoys legal privileges, and can monopolise collective bargaining because only workplace unions with a majority of membership can bargain collectively.

In an unprecedented development, non-payment of wages in Serbian enterprises in 1996, led the SSS to undertake a series of strikes towards the end of the year.

Leaders and activists of the independent union Nezavisnost, formed in 1991, continued to be persecuted for their union activities by the police and the authorities, as well as by employers.

In a rare and significant victory during 1996, Nezavisnost won an appeal at the Constitutional Court claiming that the 1994 change to the 1990 General Collective Agreement was unconstitutional.

The amendment had institutionalised discrimination against independent unions by obliging employers only to apply the law when dealing with the SSS.

The law provides protection against anti-union discrimination, and obliges employers not to harass, transfer, or dismiss trade union officials. It also obliges employers to provide unions with premises for trade union work; to allow them to circulate union information; to pay officials carrying out trade union duties, and let them have access to all workers; and to authorise absences for union officials to attend trade union events.

The changes had virtually banned the activities of Nezavisnost and other independent unions in enterprises. It meant they could be thrown out of workplaces in which they had organised. The changes also ruled out any possibilities for independent unions to bargain collectively or have check-off facilities.

Independent union activists in enterprises faced suspension from their jobs and bans from factory premises. They were also transferred to work in other localities or to lower-grade jobs; sent on "forced leave"; subject to unfounded and illegal disciplinary proceedings; fired; or arrested. Parallel unions were set up in factories where independent unions had organised.

Union dues continued to be automatically checked-off to the SSS by enterprise directors. Requests for payment of dues to an independent union allowed enterprise directors to know who belonged to independent unions. Management continued to pay union dues collected from independent unions to the official trade unions.

There were reports of managements’ inviting members of independent unions to private talks and threatening or bribing them to leave the union.

In April, Predrag Dordevic, the Nezavisnost representative in the Zajecar cables factory, was disciplined for "upsetting the workers" - a euphemism for trade union activity. The police also tried to ban the union's newsletter from the factory.

During the same month, a delegation of international trade union leaders visiting Nezavisnost in the capital, Belgrade, was scheduled to visit the independent unions in the 21 Maj and IMT factories. Enterprise directors refused to let them onto the premises and locked the gates.

Dragan Matic, president of the independent union in the 21 Maj factory in Rakovica, was suspended from his job in May and fined. He had demanded equal treatment for the independent and the official union. Previously, both unions had been accustomed to attending the meeting of the Board of Directors. When a new manager discontinued this practice, Dragan Matic attended uninvited.

On 12 June, the independent trade union at the post and telecommunications company in Pancevo organised a panel discussion on trade union freedoms and union organisation. Enterprise management banned the meeting and barred the speakers from entering the premises.

During the night of 24 June, strike-breakers, in the presence of the police, used force to tear down part of a wall, break down a door, and enter the premises of the Jugo-Export company where workers were on strike. The strike, over anti-trade union measures introduced during privatisation, had lasted for over 400 days. The company had refused to talk to the workers and had threatened to end the strike with force.

For several days the strike-breakers harassed the strikers, most of whom were women. They assaulted some of them. The strike was supported by Nezavisnost.

At the Lasta Transport Company, where 15 independent unionists were fired for organising a strike in 1995, the Labour Inspector ordered the temporary reinstatement of the workers until a final court decision was made on the case. The company management stepped up harassment and assigned them to new jobs in various place over 50 km from Belgrade.

The president of the independent union in the Zastava-Transport factory in Kragujevac was moved from his job supervising wage payments to a non-existent job. The appeal body in the enterprise refused to listen to him. However, the Labour Inspector ordered his reinstatement.

At the end of August, Zivadin Markovic, president of the independent union at the Min Vagonka factory in Nis, Miroslaz Nikolic, secretary and Bojko Lucic, executive committee member, were suspended and then fired for "upsetting the workers and urging them to go on strike".

At the end of September, Dragoslav Trifunovic, president of the independent union in the emergency medical service, was suspended from his job. He was charged with inciting the workers to go on strike and talking to the press about the situation in the service, thus harming the image of the institution. He went on hunger strike in protest.

On 28 October, Dragojob Stosic, vice-president of the Association of Free and Independent Trade Unions and president of the Belgrade Municipal Transport Drivers' Trade Union, was arrested for organising a public transport strike. Special forces of the Interior Ministry beat-up the striking workers before arresting Stosic. He was denied visits from lawyers and family and held for several days.

SPAIN C87/C98

During the year, the government made a unilateral decision that public sector workers would not receive a wage increase in 1997, and refused to discuss the issue in the representative statutory body charged with negotiating pay and conditions in the public service.

The decision also violated a legally-binding national collective agreement signed in 1994 between the government and public sector unions which dealt with pay and conditions in the public service for 1995-97. The agreement provided for a pay increase in 1997 which would be conditioned by various economic indicators and reached through collective bargaining. The national trade union centres, the UGT and CC.OO., said that the relevant economic indicators were also favourable.

The government's budget, which was due to be passed by parliament in January, 1997, was expected to confirm this decision.

UKRAINE C87/C98

In July, the NPG Independent Miners' Federation went on strike because they had not been paid for several months. Massive mine closures and job losses were predicted in a restructuring of the industry.

The miners set up road and rail blockades. The authorities sent the police to search the offices of the strike committee, which they closed down. On 20 August, an arbitration court ordered the committee disbanded.

Mikhail Krylov, the leader of the Donetsk miners' strike committee in the Donbass region, was arrested and charged with disrupting public order, and later released pending trial.

Other union leaders were detained on the same charges. In October, two leaders of the independent miners' union in Lougansk, Piotr Kitt and Mikhail Skrinsky, were convicted of disrupting public order and were given suspended jail sentences. They had been detained since August.

Mikhail Krylov's trial began in Zaporozhye in December. The courts refused his application for documents, which had been confiscated when he was arrested, to be returned to him. The documents were needed for his defence and included letters which the strike committee had written to the authorities early in the year, warning them about the potential for unrest in the coal-mining regions.

In October, the NPG and other independent unions held a demonstration because wages were still two to eight months in arrears.

In June, the VPMU Free Trade Union of Locomotive Engineers said that its members were being discriminated against by the management of UZ, the state-owned railways, because of their union activities during a restructuring of the Nicolayev locomotive depot. Several union members were dismissed.

UNITED KINGDOM C87/C98

1996 marked the 12th anniversary of the ban on independent trade unions at Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the intelligence-gathering centre in Cheltenham.

The ban was imposed without consultation by the Conservative government in January, 1984. GCHQ staff can only join an in-house staff federation.

The ILO has repeatedly called for the ban to be lifted. It has also criticised many of the provisions of the nine pieces of law adopted since 1980.

The laws have transformed the legal framework in which unions operate. They are restrictive, complex, and often unclear, and make it difficult for unionists to know whether their activities are legal or not. Unions have said that the judiciary's interpretation of the laws has been even more restrictive than expected.

The lack of protection against anti-union discrimination means that it can be potentially harmful for workers to join unions and take part in their activities. It is also still legal for employers or others to maintain and circulate "blacklists" of union members seeking jobs.

The 1992 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act codified the 1980s legislation into one law. However, it failed to clarify it, in particular the uncertainties about what constitutes a legal strike. The right to strike is not protected by law.

Under the 1992 Act, there is no protection against dismissal or any other disciplinary measure for workers who take part, or intend to take part, in a strike. Employers can sack all workers who go on strike, and then rehire selectively after three months.

The Act stops unions from disciplining members who refuse to go on a strike which has won a majority vote in a strike ballot. Any disciplinary measures imposed on strike-breakers are illegal. Unions cannot use their funds to compensate officials for fines imposed on them in the course of trade union work.

Strikes are limited to disputes involving workers and their immediate employer. Unions embarking on secondary, sympathy or protest strikes, face crippling fines. Their members can be sacked without notice or compensation and have no rights to appeal or to reinstatement.

There is no legal obligation on employers to recognise unions for collective bargaining.

The 1993 Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act encourages employers to discriminate against trade union members, short of dismissal, and to undermine collective bargaining. It allows employers to deny pay increases to union members who refuse to give-up collective bargaining and sign individual contracts.

The Act removed the goal of promoting collective bargaining from the statement of aims of the government-sponsored conciliation and arbitration service, ACAS.

It obliged unions, with few exceptions, to admit individuals or groups of workers into membership, whether they wished to or not. This undermined the ability of the TUC and its affiliates to make their own decisions about union demarcation and disrupted established patterns in industrial relations. It became illegal for a union to exclude members in accordance with decisions of the TUC Disputes Committee. The government was not able to give any justification for the legislation.

Employers can seek provisional court injunctions to halt a strike if they think it may be illegal. The 1993 law also encouraged individuals, with state support, to apply to the High Court for an order to restrain an illegally-organised strike on the grounds that they are, or are likely to be, deprived of goods or services because of it.

The Act obliges unions to give the employer a list of those voting in a strike ballot, and who would subsequently be going on strike.

An employer can seek an injunction to prevent a strike by claiming that a strike ballot is inaccurate, and can seek damages after a ballot and even after the beginning of a strike. Many proposed strikes have been thwarted by successful court challenges about the accuracy of ballot lists.

The Act also imposed extensive, detailed requirements on unions, employers, and members, in respect to the check-off system of union dues payment. Trade unions were given twelve months to ask every union member to give their employer renewed authority to deduct their dues by check-off. Unions must do this every three years.

Procedures for trade union elections and strike ballots, as well as funding of political parties by trade unions were regulated in minute detail by the laws.

Table of contents