Migrant trade union as a form of discrimination

As we learned in February 2012, in Arkhangelsk, the chairman of the local trade union of migrants Dmitry Dubonos lost the case on the liquidation of the trade union.

Recall that in June 2011 the Arkhangelsk regional prosecutor's office filed a lawsuit with the regional court liquidation of the Territorial Trade Union of Workers organizations using the labor of migrants of the Arkhangelsk region" ("TP MAO"). The prosecutor's office substantiated the claim by the fact that during the creation of the trade union there were gross violations were committed, since "the concept of "migrant" is not has a legal definition in the legislation of the Russian Federation , and the trade union includes "an indefinite circle of persons not related to each other in any industrial or professional relations .

1 July 2011, the Arkhangelsk Regional Court dismissed the claim prosecutors.

Prosecutor's office filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and on September 6, 2011 The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court ruled that according to which the decision of the court of first instance was set aside and the case was sent for re-examination.

21 October 2011, the Arkhangelsk Regional Court satisfied the claim of the prosecutor's office and made a decision to liquidate "TP MAO" with its exclusion from the Unified state register of legal entities.

Dubonos filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court to set aside the decision of the regional court as issued in violation of the requirements of the law, but the court rejected his complaint, and the union was abolished.

When deciding on the liquidation of TP MAO, the Arkhangelsk Regional Court and The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation was guided by the main argument of the prosecutor's office, according to which, the members of the trade union were not united by one kind of activity and common industrial and professional interests. Noting that foreign citizens have the right to join Russian trade unions, the judges, however, regarded as a violation of trade union legislation, the fact that, according to the charter of "TP MAO", members of the trade union "may be persons who are migrants and other foreign citizens" . From the point of view of the court, "membership in "TP MAO" is made dependent on citizenship and a certain social status", which is contrary to the law on trade unions and the Constitution, according to which "any form of restriction of the rights of citizens on the grounds of social, racial, national, linguistic or religious affiliation" .

For their part, representatives of the migrant trade union pointed out that the demands prosecutor's offices are contrary to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, according to which " everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of their interests" , as well as the fact that the trade union was registered by a court decision. However, their arguments were not taken into account.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court found it necessary to clarify that "the decision court on the liquidation of "TP MAO" does not prevent the unification of members of this public organization in a different organizational and legal form " . However the question arises whether this is actually possible, if judges believe that labor migrants cannot be united by common interests, and the existence of a migrant trade union infringes on the rights of Russian citizens.

Dubonos intends to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.

We also recall that Dubonos has already sent a complaint to Strasbourg about the decision of the Federal Migration Service for the Arkhangelsk Region to annul the prior permission for temporary residence in the territory of the Russian Federation on the grounds that he "advocates forcibly changing the foundations of the constitutional order of the Russian Federation, by other actions creates a threat security of the Russian Federation or citizens of the Russian Federation " . In Russian courts that confirmed the legality of the revocation of the permit, Dubonos was unable to obtain an answer to the question, what kind of unlawful acts are imputed to him, since the courts considered that that this issue is entirely within the competence of the FSB. Although Dubonos is married to a Russian citizen and has been living in Russia since 2001, he was excluded from the President's Resettlement Assistance Program compatriots living abroad and did not receive a Russian citizenship. He is currently forced to make do with a temporary permit. stay on the territory of the Russian Federation, which does not provide for a work permit, and must leave the territory of the Russian Federation every 90 days.