Overview of the Trade Union Movement in
St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region in 2005-2006

By V. Bolshakov

General growth of economic activity in the last two years made it a lot easier for employers to hire labour. Most actively develop industries, into which foreign capital is invested, particularly automotive sector. Along with this, employers’ anti-union policies "improve". In the last two years new anti-union methodologies have been applied in Ledingrad Region on many occasions. More and more frequently employers resort to the following measures.

a) In the course of conflict in closed joint-stock company Portoflot (the seaport of St. Petersburg), which started in spring 2005, trade union Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FITUR), which required wage indexation, by Feb. 2006 was disassembled, since the board transferred the entire property into the newly created firms and suggested that the workers find their new jobs in these firms after being laid off from Portoflot. The workers, frightened that "not all will be rehired", rushed into new companies. The trade union ended its existence, and its chairman was discharged.

b) PROFTEK (Trade union of TEK, energy sector). In June 2005 the city transferred all services of the enterprise "TEK St. Petersburg" on the Petrograd side with its 600 workers to the "daughter" company of Gazprom open joint-stock company "Peterburgteploenergo" (PTE). Earlier on over 300 people were members of the trade union federation FITUR and 50 of PROFTEK. Now all employees were offered to quit TEK and get rehired into the newly created company PTE. New board decided to build relations only with the trade union FITUR. Only 10% of the staff joined this union. At the same time another union, PROFTEK (30 members), was created. In spring 2006 it defended its laid off members during massive restructuring. This union confronted the board with illegality of its actions and after threatening with inevitable judicial defeat and penalties in millions rubbles, trade union attained doubling of the compensation for its dismissed members. By fall 2006 trade union FITUR self-destroyed, its Chairman moved to PROFTEK, which increased to 50 members and continues grow. The board proposed to PROFTEK to reach a collective agreement and now negotiations on wages are being conducted.

c) In March 2006 a conflict started in the refrigeration depot "Predportovaya" (dock yard refrigeration sector) where a restructuring took place and, again, a "daughter " company has been created in place of the original enterprise. The board decided to use restructuring to crush the trade union with 150 members. In spite of a whole series of the actions such as pickets in St. Petersburg and Moscow, meeting, letters of solidarity, Gosduma Deputy Tyulkin’s help, leaflets with compromising material about the Chief of Depot and procurator’s interference, board did not forego its intentions. The majority of the members of trade union were officially forced to leave it, but they continue to pay dues unofficially. Those who refused to leave the trade union and to voluntarily quit their jobs in depot in August 2006 were transferred the department with no active work, which entails loss of wages by several times. However, 20 workers insist on remaining in this department and intend to take the matter to court after they will be discharged in early 2007. Those union members who quit are not being rehired into the newly created company. The goal of the union now is to create a cell in the new company and to return the lost posts.

d) In fall 2006 a merger of FUTIR of the airport "Pulkovo" with FUTIR of the airline "Russia" occurred. As a result, the collective agreements reached by the trade unions of air traffic controllers, stewards and pilots a year prior became invalid. Negotiations on new collective agreement experience difficulties.

a) In July 2005 the board required the Port Committee of Dock Workers of Morport (Seaport) of St. Petersburg "clear the premises within a month", as well as turned off their phone and power. However, after a strike of dock workers and solidarity actions of trade unions forced the employer to put off his intention.

b) In September 2005 trade union committee of the Southern branch of PROFTEK of "TEK of St. Petersburg" (energy sector) was forced to move from the boiler room into the company headquarters downtown. At the same time the management prohibited the leadership of the union to go to the workplace of the union members. Since fall 2006 only the Chairman of he union Gusev can go to union members’ word sites but not any other member of the union leadership.

c) In October 2005 the board of the enterprise "Vodokanal" ("Water Channel") under the pretext of conducting repairs required an independent trade union to vacate the location of the trade union committee in the Southern station where majority of the trade union members work. The board unlocked the union’s office, made inventory list and lately has transferred the belongings to the union. After some pickets and negotiations the trade union committee was given another office downtown, which is extremely inconvenient for the members. The Chairman of the trade union Bryukhovichenko is still prohibited from visiting the work sites of his union members.

d) In the course of conflict in the refrigeration depot "Predportovaya" during May 2006 the board sealed the office of the trade union committee (in the building of depot) together with the entire property and documents of the trade union and deprived the Chairman Trifanovsky the opportunity to enter the territory. Only after a number of actions trade union committee obtained an office, but the garage, outside of the depot and Trifanovsky received the right to approach his members’ work sites. The workers guard new trade union committee office, however, the conflicts have happened already on two occasions. Trifanovsky alone and with comrades was locked in the garage and was let free only with the interference of the police. Now the board again requires them to vacate the union committee office by January 1, 2007. Trade union is determined to protect its space.

e) Under various pretexts union committee offices of "Portoflot" (port enterprise) and locomotive-drivers.

f) The union Chairman Semushkin at the plant "Caterpillar-Tosno" was not allowed to see his union members at their work places and eventually was fired back in 2004. In August 2005 under the pressure of the procurator Semushkin was given both access to the plant and a desk "for trade union work" right next to the office of HR Director. In summer 2006 the management again attempted not to let him see the union members. Now Semushkin does have access to the plant, however, the effectiveness of union work is brought to the minimum because of a constant supervision of guards after all movements of the Chairman on the plant territory and his encounters with the workers.

a) In summer 2005 the employer October Railway ceased to transfer payments to the account of regional organization RPLBZH (machinists). After the matter was taken to court, towards the end of 2006 payments resumed; however, in one-and-a-half years without payments trade union survived one of the hardest times in its existence.

b) In fall 2005 board of the company "Portoflot" in the course of labour dispute refused to transfer membership fees to the trade union of water transport workers (PRVT). In January 2006 the transfer of payments was renewed by judicial solution, but up to that moment organization in Portoflot has already fallen apart down due to the flight of workers into the new firms (see above).

c) In fall 2006 as a result of the termination of collective agreement in the airport Pulkovo (because of the merger with the airline "Russia") the board refused to transfer membership payments to the accounts of stewards’ and pilots’ trade unions. In connection with this before the renewal of collective agreement the trade unions of Pulkovo were transferred onto a "starvation ration".

In many enterprises overtime pay composes the substantial part of the general earnings and is estimate by many workers as a privilege. Especially this is true for Leningrad Region where the possibilities for earning big salaries are severely limited. It is no wonder that the deprivation in overtime is turned into of the means of action against rebellious workers. This measure is combined with others, among them firing of the leaders, penalizing activists, transfers to inactive departments, refusal in promotions and by blaming the trade union in the production problems

a) Independent trade union at "Skania-Pieter" was established in February 2006 and self-dismissed after only the month in spite of the protests of his Chairman Perepelkin. The reason was prohibition to the overtime for the members of the trade union.

b) Analogous pressure on the members of trade union at the plant "Caterpillar-Tosno" led to the fact that the trade union of 78 official members in the early 2006 toward the end of the year lost 74 people. This trade union intended to go underground since early 2007. The program of further actions is developed and it will be carried out.

In June-September 2005 the board of the "Morport" ("Seaport") regularly printed articles against the trade union of dock workers in the newspaper "Metro", which was printed in 200 thousand copies and was distributed in metro stations. PROFTEK (union in the energy sector) prepared articles in defense of dock workers, but the editorial staff of "Metro" refused to publish it saying that "Morport" has paid monopoly right on the dock theme up to October 2005. There were articles against dock workers in other publications as well. In defense of dock workers articles were published in the newspapers "Za Rabochee Delo" ("For the Workers’ Cause"), "Narodnaya Pravda" ("People’s Truth"), "Profsoyuzny Kuryer" ("Trade Union Messenger"), "Rabochaya Demokratiya" ("Workers’ Democracy"), "Trudovaya Rossia" ("Labouring Russia"), etc., Internet- publications and several thousand leaflets were spread around the city.

As opposed to earlier action by employers, now anti-union media campaigns became a rule. This tells us that the employers are learning. They no longer look at union activists black sheep rebels simply to be dealt with by firing. Employers started to treat unions as organizations, which are not loyal, they study their structure, work principles, strengths and weaknesses. They learn to oppose unions with full knowledge.

Possibly, employers are familiar with the certain new procedure of anti-trade-union actions, which actively is studied at the elite seminars for the managers conducted by one of the training business concerns of St. Petersburg. Another way of the employers sharing their methodologies is through their networking groups, such as Russian Union of the Industrialists and Entrepreneurs.

Finally, one can note a new trend: media’s interest to trade unions, especially in the industries where foreign capital is involved. This has to do with journalists copying the trends of civilized capitalism, indispensable attribute of which in the West is trade union coverage. This means trade unions should exploit this niche more actively and utilise media to the maximum.