Success Stories
Narine Karapetyan
Editor of "Legal Newsletter"
SUCCESS STORY OF A CASE ON THE PROTECTION OF LABOR RIGHTS
HISTORY
On 7 November 2005, a group of employees of the Central Administration of Information Technologies Department of ArmenTel Company handed a "Claim" on the facts of violations of their labor, professional and social rights to the General Executive Director of the Company. They also had attached copies of the decisions of employees of the corresponding departments of the IT General Directorate, which informed about organization of a two-hour preventive strike at 10:00 a.m. on 17 November 2005. The preventive strike was organized as a protest march till the administrative building of the Company, and lasted about an hour and a quarter. The action of the preventive strike was aimed at introducing a suggestion of to form reconciliation proposal and reconciliation committee in compliance with the provisions of the RA Labor Code to ArmenTel Management. The participants of the action tied their mouths with red ribbons, thus showing the public that their freedom of speech had been violated, and the employees were chased for their opinions and thoughts.
CONSEQUENCES
At about 17:00 p.m. on the day of the preventive strike the organizers were served a subpoena of the Court of the First Instance of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun Community of Yerevan, which informed that "ArmenTel" CJSC, had applied to the Court with a request to recognize the strike of its employees illegal. The claim of ArmenTel was submitted to court proceeding, and the investigation of the case was appointed for the next day, at 10:00 a.m. on 18 November 2005. In their claim the ArmenTel lawyers had mentioned the following threat, which we duplicate textually, ". the above mentioned allows us to argue that that organization of the strike by the employees of ITGD does not issue from the requirements of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, as well as of other laws, and if the court will recognize it illegal by its verdict, it may be a ground for the dismissal of the participants.." This threat did not stay as a written threat only, but was realized in fact.
EXPERT SUPPORT
The ArmenTel employees who had no legal knowledge, applied to the Armenian Young Lawyers Association (AYLA) with a request to provide them legal support. The Armenian Young Lawyers Association satisfied their request and provided lawyers to protect the rights of the organizers and participants of the preventive strike in the Court of the First Instance of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun Community free of charge. The parties also agreed that AYLA would provide free legal, as well as advocatory services to the participants of the strike. AYLA assigned its member and advocate Miss Liana Harutyunyan, a young lawyer with professional background and knowledge as a coordinator of this case. She continues this rather complicated case up till now, with the devotion and kind heartiness. The AYLA lawyers Gevorg Gyozalyan and Arpine Yeghikyan support her in this case as well.
"FAITH" TRADE UNION
After the preventive strike, which took place on 17 November 2005, the employees that had initiated the strike began to be chased: the law suit "ArmenTel vs. the organizers of the preventive strike" started, the heads of the "obstinate" subdivisions were dismissed from work, about 30 employees that had participated in the court case as defendants were reprimanded, plain threats of mass dismissals from the work were announced. Having the aim to resist the forthcoming pursuits, and with the recommendation and support of the AYLA the ArmenTel employees met in the founding meeting on 28 November 2005 where they decided to establish the new "Faith" Trade Union, which in contrast to the old one would protect the interests of the employees. "Faith" Trade Union was registered on 13 December 2005, and on 19 December the Trade Union announced about the start of its activities in 'ArmenTel' CJSC over the Public Radio of Armenia.
HEARING OF THE CASE IN THE THREE STAGED COURT SYSTEM
On 18 November 2005 the Court of the First Instance of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun Communities of Yerevan decided to sustain the claim and declared illegal the preventive strike, which was announced on 7 November 2007. On 8 February 2006 the Court of Appeals on Civil Cases left unchanged the decision of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun Communities, and also declared illegal the preventive strike, which was announced on 7 November 2007.
On 21 April 2006 the Chamber of Civil and Economic Cases of the Court of Cassation approved the 8 February 2006 verdict of the RA Court of Appeals on Civil Cases, and denied the petition for appeal of 22 February 2006 submitted by the AYLA advocate in the name of the organizers of the preventive strike.
FIRST VICTORIES
Without waiting to the final verdict of the court "ArmenTel" dismissed the heads of two departments. On 21 November 2005, Andranik Ghukasyan was served a notice from ArmenTel Company informing that his labor contract would be terminated on 23 November 2005.
On 5 December 2005 Armen Abrahamyan was served a notice from ArmenTel Company informing that his labor contract would be terminated on 9 December 2005. Their violated labor rights were restored by the court decision due to the consistent and devoted work of AYLA.
Misak Simonyan was illegally dismissed form the office on 16 October 2006, and on 16 December 2006 with support of AYLA he brought a claim to the court. After negotiations with ArmenTel Management Mr. Simonyan agreed to take back his claim and was restored in his place. It is pleasant to note that currently Andranik Ghukasyan, Armen Abrahamyan and Misak Simonyan continue supporting their colleagues to bring their joint struggle to triumphant end.
VICTORY IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
On 6 February 2007 the Constitutional Court of Armenia considered the appeal of advocate Liana Harutyunyan, member of the Armenian Young Lawyers Association NGO who defends the rights of Harutyun Kharatyan, Armen Abrahamyan and Andranik Ghukasyan, employees of the IT department of ArmenTel CJSC who had organized the preventive strike on 18 October 2006. The appeal refers to the provision of Article 74 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Armenia which reads: "a strike is a temporary work stoppage caused by the refusal by the employees of one or more organizations or a group of employees to perform work. in the connection with failure to solve the collective labor dispute to signing the collective agreement," and part 3 of Article 75 of the RA Labor Code, which states, "Announcing strike is prohibited during the whole term of the Collective Agreement." The mentioned provisions fail to apply with the requirements of Paragraph 2 of Article 3, Paragraph 4 of Article 6, Paragraph 3 of Article 32 and Paragraph 2 of Article 43 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia and the appeal required to recognize them invalid and contradicting to the Constitution of the RA. The Constitutional Court of Armenia considered the application at the open session on 7 February 2007 and decided to sustain the claim and recognize the disputable provision of Article 73 and Part 3 of Article 75 of the RA Labor Code inconsistent to Paragraph 3 of Article 32 and Paragraph 2 of Article 43 of the RA Constitution as much as the right to strike is stipulated only by the condition of failure to solve the collective dispute in respect of signing the collective agreement and bar the right to strike under new conditions (including the condition of complying to the obligations, which may rise from the collective agreements signed before). The Court has recognized the provision ". and organizing strike is prohibited" of Part 2 of Article 60 of the Labor Code as contradicting to Paragraph 3 of Article 32 and Paragraph 2 of Article 43.
POSSIBILITY
Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia is a ground for the revision of the mentioned above 21 April 2006 decision of the Chamber of Civil and Economic Cases of the Court of Cassation, which approved the 8 February 2006 verdict of the RA Court of Appeals on Civil Cases, and denied the petition for appeal of 22 February 2006 submitted by the AYLA advocate in the name of the organizers of the preventive strike. In its declaration The Court of Cassation had mentioned, "under such conditions the Court considers that the strike was organized in violation of the requirements of the Articles 73 and 74 of the Labor Code of the RA," whereas in its decision of 6 February 2007 the Constitutional Court recognized the disputable provision of Article 73 and Part 3 of Article 75 of the RA Labor Code inconsistent and contradicting to Paragraph 3 of Article 32 and Paragraph 2 of Article 43 of the RA Constitution, as well as the provision ". and organizing strike is prohibited" of Part 2 of Article 60 of the Labor Code. Soon the organizers of the preventive strike, with the support of the AYLA lawyers, will apply to the Court of Cassation with a requirement to review the decision of 21 April 2006 of the Chamber of Civil and Economic Cases of the Court of Cassation under new conditions.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
On 18 October 2006 the ArmenTel Employees H. Kharatyan, A. Ghukasyan and A. Abrahamyan who had organized the preventive strike issued a corresponding claim to the European Court of Human Rights, with the support of Liana Harutyunyan, the AYLA lawyer. The Court has received it assigned the corresponding number to the claim.
THE CASE OF 12 EMPLOYEES
On 7 June 2006 "ArmenTel" Company illegally dismissed 12 other employees who had participated in the preventive strike. The employees, supported by Miss Liana Harutyunyan, submitted a claim to the Court of the First Instance of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun Community of Yerevan. On 3 August 2006 the court dismissed the claims of all the applicants. Naturally the applicants decided to appeal the decision in the court of appellate jurisdiction, which on 16 November 2006 decided to deny the case of the claim of A.Torosyan, A.Boynagryan, G.Gharagyozayan, A.Afyan, G. Manukyan, V.Minasyan, A.Ghukasyan, K.Levonyan, A.Galoyan, N.Andreasyan, L.Mirzoyan, S.Grigoryan v. ArmenTel CJSC on recognizing the orders of their dismissal invalid, and on rehabilitation of their work places, and payment of their forced outage. The case is still in process and soon the 12 employees will apply to the Court of Cassation with a claim against the 16 November 2006 decision of the RA Court of Appeal.
EPILOGUE
On 9 November 2006 Harutyun Kharatyan, Head of the Preventive Strike Committee, who is also the Chairperson of "Faith" Trade Union, was illegally dismissed from work by "ArmenTel" Company. On 9 December 2006 Mr. Kharatyan applied to the Court of the First Instance of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun Community of Yerevan with a claim to recognize illegal the order of his dismissal. On 27 February 2007 the Court of the First Instance of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun Community denied the claim. Harutyun Kharatyan is going to Appeal the decision. You can read about it, as well as about Harutyun Kharatyan's Odyssey in Court of the First Instance of Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun Community in one of the coming issues of our Newsletter.
Interviews
THE SECOND GENERATION REFORMS SHOULD START FROM THE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. December 2007
Karen Zadoyan, Managing Partner of the "LEGAL ALLIANCE" Law Firm, Advocate
THE EXTENT TO WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL'S HUMAN RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED DETERMINES THE LEVEL OF JUSTICE WITHIN THE COUNTRY. June 2007
Alvina Gyulumyan, A Judge for the European Court of Human Rights
THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE STATE TAXATION SERVICES IS THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF HONEST TAXPAYERS. April 2007
Arthur Osikyan, PhD in Law, Deputy Head of the State Taxation Services at the Armenian Government
THE RA JUDICIARY SYSTEM SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT, JUST, TRUSTWORTHY AND PREDICTABLE. March 2007
Hovhannes Manukyan, Chairman of the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia
THE RESULTS OF LEGAL AND JUDICIARY REFORMS ARE INADEQUATE.February 2007
Gagik Ghazinyan, Doctor of Law, Professor, Corresponding Member of the Republic of Armenia National Academy, Dean of the Faculty of Law of Yerevan State University
THERE IS NO NEED TO EXPAND THE AUTHORITIES OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER, IT IS IMPORTANT TO USE THEM EFFECTIVELY: January 2007
Armen Harutyunyan, Ombudsman of the Republic of Armenia
