Our guest expert on labor issues is Anna-Stefaniya Chepik, head of Corporate/HR Practice at law firm Pepeliaev, Goltsblat & Partners

Your opinion on the rising labor union activism in Russia 

In principle, trade unions in Russia were relatively weak after the collapse of the Soviet Union, making them to play little or no active part in workers’ labor terms negotiations with employers or in the nation’s political life. The current intensification of labor unions’ activities is a normal trend, which is expected to continue to grow further. This is because, compared with the labor unions’ activities in other European countries, and particularly, the roles they play in the regulation of their domestic labor markets, I would say their Russian counterparts are only just getting started.

On the lopsidedness of the Labor Code in favor of the employers 

I don’t agree with this view, because the current legislation provides labor unions with tremendous tools, which if used judiciously, can enable them to exert strong influence on their employers. It needs to be noted that a strike, as an extreme way of resolving a collective labor dispute, is a very powerful instrument for influencing an employer, and therefore cannot be used on a daily basis to resolve disagreements between the employers and employees. In my opinion, employees may resort to striking only, when all other available legal tools have been exhausted, but not before. 

On the need for the liberalization of the Labor Code

I see no need for such changes at the present time, primarily because strikes constitute an extreme measure and should not be used extensively. The current labor legislation is, indeed, extremely tedious, because in order to call a strike, all the mediation procedures need to be observed: the workers need to convene a meeting, adhere strictly to the quorum requirements, notify their employers in advance, etc. But the Labor Code also equally imposes strict requirements on the employers, and not only regarding holding collective negotiations and resolving disputes, but also in all other aspects of labor relations. For this reason, any liberalization of the labor legislation should be comprehensive and not apply to just the workers or employers alone. In addition, in the absence of sufficiently precise regulation of the procedures for declaring strikes, employers may find themselves held hostages to the interests of certain individuals and possible abuses from labor unions. The requirements in the current legislation essentially compel both sides to negotiate, as the end objective of the entire system is, after all, to resolve conflicts and not bring a company’s production to a halt.

On the FNPR’s alleged siding with employers in labor conflicts

I don’t share this view, because the FNPR, in my opinion, actively supports workers’ interests. This is demonstrated, amongst others, by the existing legislative acts regulating labor relations in the country today. For instance, as far as I know, the labor unions played a leading role in the enactment of amendments to the Labor Code in 2006.