Dual power at the Volyn 'Olympus' of trade unions

The "orange" tint of the collision

The origins of the conflict that led to such a collision go back to the first days of the "orange revolution" in Lutsk. On November 29, a group of picketers led by the regional Committee of National Salvation demanded that the FPO publicly declare its political sympathies. The picketers chanted "Down with the sellout trade unions!" and "Come out!". The picketers demanded the resignation of the then chairman of the Council of the Federation of Trade Unions of Volyn, Halyna Holovenets, motivated by the fact that her position ran counter to the opinion of the absolute majority of ordinary trade union members.

On the same day, at the demand of the regional Committee of National Salvation, an extraordinary meeting of the Presidium of the regional council of trade unions was convened, which took place under pressure from the street. The Presidium decided to convene an extraordinary plenum of the Federation of Trade Unions of the Volyn Region with the agenda "On no confidence in the chairman of the federation of trade unions of the Volyn region, Holovenets H.I."

On December 2, 2004, the extraordinary plenum of the FPO by a majority of votes expressed no confidence in Halyna Holovenets, electing Vasyl Tomashevych as acting chairman. 25 out of 33 delegates of the plenum voted for expressing no confidence in H. Holovenets, 1 against, and 2 abstained. The passions around the Volyn trade unions subsided for a while...

However, it soon turned out that Halyna Holovenets had challenged such a decision of the FPO plenum in court. On April 19, 2005, the Lutsk City and District Court ruled to reinstate her at work immediately. By that time, the next FPO plenum had already elected Ivan Karpomyz as the new chairman of the Federation, and, according to the trade union statute, only a similar assembly is entitled to dismiss him from the position. A legal collision arose: as of today we have two legitimate chairmen of the regional FPO Council.

By analogy with several years ago (Rukh-Udovenko, Rukh-Kostenko), we will henceforth use the conventional concepts of FPO-Holovenets and FPO-Karpomyz. Regarding the situation that has developed in the Federation of Trade Unions of the Volyn Region, FPO-Karpomyz prepared an information bulletin in early May, intended for public familiarization with it. This document makes it possible to understand the logic of the actions of one of the parties to the conflict situation.

FPO Information Bulletin

On December 2, 2004, an FPO plenum took place, which by an overwhelming majority of votes dismissed the chairman of the FPO, Holovenets H.I., with the wording "for no confidence."

The events that preceded the plenum unfolded as follows. In fact, from May 2004, H. Holovenets did not perform the duties of chairman, since she worked as the head of a shadow headquarters in V. Yanukovych's election. During this time, statements were made on behalf of the trade unions about the support by the public of Volyn for the pro-government candidate. Ignoring the obvious situation regarding the political sympathies of the trade union members headed by the Council and habitually applying dictatorial methods of leadership, H. Holovenets sent a large delegation from the regional trade unions on November 18 to participate in a rally in support of Yanukovych.

When the participants of the "orange revolution" began to demand the resignation of H. Holovenets from the post of chairman, she left work without the permission of the Presidium and fled to rest at the "Khmilnyk" resort.

The decapitated Presidium (H. Holovenets had abolished the positions of deputies more than 10 years ago and ruled single-handedly) began telephone negotiations with H. Holovenets. Members of the Presidium demanded that H. Holovenets return to work, to which she replied that she would not return and advised them to get out of the situation by the method of "do what you want, I won't sue you."

After resting at the resort, H. Holovenets was on sick leave for two weeks, after returning from which she received all settlement payments and sick leave pay.

At that time, the Federation of Trade Unions of the region was already headed by I. Karpomyz, elected by the plenum on February 17, who began an audit of the financial activity of the Federation Council and an inventory of trade union property. Already from the first days, the audit revealed gross violations in the use of trade union funds, mismanagement and squandering of trade union property, which, as entire property complexes, without the consent of the Council and often even the Presidium, was transferred into the ownership of the closed joint-stock company "Volynturyst," headed by Vasyl Holovenets. Some of these complexes, built with trade union funds, were immediately sold by "Volynturyst."

Having learned about the problems during the audit, H. Holovenets filed a lawsuit for reinstatement at work.

The court, without taking into account any of the arguments provided by the Federation of Trade Unions and without familiarizing itself with the founding documents of the Federation, reinstated H. Holovenets at work with the wording "reinstate immediately." Within several days, by method of frantic pressure from the state executive service and the city and district court, attempts were made to forcibly seat H. Holovenets in the chairman's chair of the Federation.

The court created a legal collision where the FPO has two chairmen. One, whom the plenum elected from 3 candidates and who has a concept and social program of activity for the region's trade unions. And the second, whom the judicial authorities want to seat in the chair of the head of the region's public organization by method of rape.

A way out of this situation could be an extraordinary conference scheduled for May 24. It will have to make a choice about where the trade unions should go – back to dictatorship and pandering to the authorities, or forward – to the professional protection of the rights and interests of trade union members. And this choice must be made by those on whose initiative the trade unions were created and at whose expense they are maintained...

Ivan Karpomyz:

- After the inventory of property was carried out, piquant moments came to light. For example, on what basis was the closed joint-stock company "Volynturyst" created on the basis of trade union property, headed by Mrs. Halyna's husband Vasyl Holovenets? After all, Art. 48 of the Statute of the Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine clearly states: "The property and funds of the FTU are the collective property of the member organizations that are part of the FTU and are not subject to distribution among them and trade union members..." Afterwards, Halyna Holovenets single-handedly gives permission for the sale of the hotel complex in Novovolynsk, which was built with trade union funds, to her husband. He, in turn, sells this property complex in 42nd place to his daughter Holieva (by her husband's surname). In my opinion, this is nothing other than family corruption with trade union property...

A number of other similar facts have also been discovered. According to the audit results, during the years of Halyna Holovenets's leadership of the Federation, 10 property complexes worth UAH 11 million disappeared from the trade unions' balance sheet, of which 6 objects, whose construction was partially financed with significant trade union funds, became the property of CJSC "Volynturyst." I would like to note: as long as the matter did not concern trade union property, there was no talk of losses inflicted on the FPO, and the issue of Mrs. Holovenets's reinstatement at work was not raised. As soon as we "stirred up the hive," a lawsuit immediately appeared in court. Probably in order to return to managing affairs and destroy some documents. This is already an embrasure that is firing, and it can only be closed with one's own body.

- How do you assess the situation that has developed through the prism of law and morality?

- The court satisfied Mrs. Holovenets's demands in full. Both the haste with which the court bailiffs rushed to enforce the court decision is surprising. Before the ink had dried on the paper, on the same day, April 19, the court decision obliging Mrs. Holovenets to be reinstated at work immediately was brought to the FPO. The enforcement of the court decision was supposed to take place on April 21, but already on April 20 a court bailiff came to seat Mrs. Holovenets in the chair.

However, the court bailiffs did not take into account Art. 77 of the Law of Ukraine "On Court Proceedings," which states: only the body that dismissed the person from the position must issue an act of proceedings on their reinstatement. Mrs. Holovenets was dismissed by the FPO plenum, therefore, in order to enforce the court decision, the question of convening the FPO plenum or an extraordinary conference should be raised. The head of the Federation Council is subordinate to these bodies, therefore has no right to single-handedly make such a decision.

An appeal against the decision of the court of first instance has been prepared by the FPO Council and has already been sent to the Regional Court of Appeal. At the same time, complaints have been filed with the court regarding the court bailiffs, who, in our opinion, made an illegal decision to impose penalties on the Federation.

At the same time, materials on the results of the audit of the financial and economic activity of the FPO Council have been sent to the prosecutor's office. However, for unknown reasons, the prosecutor's office is delaying consideration of this issue, demanding some additional documents. Although in such cases a criminal case is opened, and the investigation is conducted by an investigator who demands documents, questions witnesses, etc.

As for morality, the actions of Halyna Holovenets during the presidential campaign and the facts discovered by the audit regarding trade union property give her no moral right to head the FPO. Trade unions do not need such an authority. As of today, there are many appeals from primary organizations to prevent Mrs. Holovenets from returning to the helm of the trade union, which she has autocratically led for 17 years.

- What way out of this situation do you propose?

- The Presidium of the FPO Council considered these issues and decided to convene an extraordinary conference, which will take place on May 24. As a law-abiding body, the conference is forced to comply with the court decision, cancel the decision of the plenum of December 2, 2004, and reinstate Halyna Holovenets in the position. However, this same conference is obliged to resolve the legal collision that has arisen. The position of chairman of the FPO Council is an elected body. The court did not take this into account and applied a norm correlative to a manager appointed to a position. The court did not say a single word about what to do with the newly elected chairman Ivan Karpomyz. The conference is called upon to cut this "Gordian knot" and elect one chairman. Whether from two candidates or from a larger number is another question. At it, everyone will be on equal terms. Whoever the delegates entrust to head the regional trade union will remain chairman.

Halyna Holovenets:

- I, as an ordinary trade union member, assess the events that have been taking place over the past six months around the regional Federation of Trade Unions unambiguously: this is a mockery of the laws and elementary principles of ethics and morality. I headed this organization for 17 years, and now this is the gratitude. In the end, the events are taking place not around the Federation, but around its chairman's chair. Certain trade union officials of the region are brazenly, cynically and vilely trying to destroy the "enemy of the revolution," Halyna Holovenets. And to prevent her from returning to the chairman's office, armed guards sit in the reception area. And this is at a time when the court has recognized the actions of these officials as unlawful and reinstated me at work.

I will not say that I was shocked by the decision on my dismissal. In my absence, it does not take great courage to make such a decision. Just as it does not to make decisions at meetings of the presidium and plenums – without explanations, that is, in absentia. The Federation of Trade Unions, which is a human rights organization, by the will of the new leadership has taken the path of violating the Constitution, the laws of Ukraine, and the statutes of the trade unions of Ukraine and the region. And the matter is not at all about me, but about what trust and respect this organization can command among the ordinary working person. Because all decisions in this situation were made by the heads of sectoral regional trade union committees or with their tacit consent, or, on the recommendations of the "top," by members of the Council.

As for mutual understanding and solidarity of trade unions – the necessary features of the "most democratic" organization – there was enough solidarity only to adopt a decision on the illegal dismissal of the chairman for political motives. And this was with the light hand of the leadership of the regional state administration, which, in essence, had no right to interfere in the affairs of the trade union.

This year, in the member organizations and in the Federation of Trade Unions, according to the Statute, reports and elections are taking place. The "orange revolution" made adjustments to this process as well. Some member organizations held early reporting and election conferences, and an extraordinary regional conference is planned. Haste and uncertainty are visible in these events. And would it not be better to honestly conduct a re-registration of trade union members, reports and elections at all levels of trade union organizations, discuss changes to the Federation's Statute and submit proposals on candidates for the position of chairman of the Federation? And, of course, give preference to young, promising activists.

- Do you agree with the thesis that after the court decision a legal collision arose?

- Of course not, since the court decision has not been enforced, I have not been reinstated in the position of chairman, as evidenced by the absence of a record of the decision in my employment record book. The average monthly earnings for the time of forced absence have also not been compensated. I have no opportunity to perform the powers of chairman provided for by the FPO statute in such a situation. I do not possess any information about decisions made by the presidium or plenums. Even decisions of trade union bodies concerning me personally were made without any explanations from me and without my participation, which is a violation of my rights and freedoms. And if the chairman of the Federation, "elected" by the plenum, is in the office, has the seal, access to all primary documents, and manages finances, then the chairman reinstated by the court is completely isolated from influencing any processes taking place in the Federation. What equality before the law can be discussed?

The court decision, directed for immediate enforcement, is deliberately and cynically not being enforced. The prosecutor's office, which is called upon to supervise the strict implementation of the laws of Ukraine by citizens and officials, in this case takes a wait-and-see position, but I hope someone will still bear responsibility for the failure to enforce the court decision.

- And what, in your opinion, is the way out of the situation?

- I see only one way out. The "new chairman" of the FPO, as the highest official of the trade unions in the region, must first immediately comply with the decision of the Lutsk City and District Court of April 19, 2005, and only subsequently, in case of disagreement with it, appeal it in the established procedure. That is, as is done in the civilized world. Whichever body, even a collegial one, made the decision to dismiss a person from the position held, this decision must comply with the Constitution of Ukraine and labor legislation. The decision on my dismissal was made during my regular vacation, at the Federation plenum on December 2, 2004, and the actual dismissal took place by a decision of the Presidium on January 24, 2005. A paradox and that's it!

Now, in view of the failure to enforce the court decision of April 19, 2005, members of the Presidium are shifting their responsibility for my dismissal onto the delegates of the regional conference. Is there really not enough courage to admit their mistake, which they made, of course, under pressure from certain persons known in the region?

- An extraordinary reporting and election conference of the FPO is planned for May 24. Do you plan to run for the position of chairman again?

- For now I am not planning anything, since no decisions have been agreed with me. I was actually not given the opportunity to start performing my official duties. I have not received any notifications regarding the conference. If I understood everything correctly, the "zero" option concerns only me, and the organizers of this conference decided everything long ago without me – how to conduct it and whom to "elect" as chairman.

- How would you comment on the accusations against you regarding the sale of trade union property?

- The accusations are groundless. Let this remain on the conscience of those who resort to such insinuations. The issue of selling trade union property primarily concerns the objects of the joint-stock company "Volynturyst." The owner of the corporate rights to the said property of the company is CJSC "Ukrproftur," and its owner, accordingly, is the Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine. The property of tourist organizations was not and is not on the balance sheet of the regional Federation of Trade Unions. Therefore, the sale of this property is carried out exclusively by decision of the owners through the General Meeting of Shareholders and in no way falls within the competence of the Federation of Trade Unions of the Volyn Region.

In conclusion, I want to inform all "contenders" for the position of FPO chairman that I in no way cling to this chair, but first of all defend my rights and human dignity, which was humiliated by the illegal dismissal from the position held "to order." I want to prove my correctness, and it has actually already been proven by the court decision. I am waiting for the corresponding lawful reaction from the persons guilty of my illegal dismissal, who in their activities used all sorts of dirty methods of fighting against me. I hope that the last word in the situation that has developed will be said by His Majesty the Law. I also hope that my opponents will understand the essence of the matter and will not stoop to dirty, unlawful actions.