Vai ir nepieciešamas karavīru arodbiedrības?

Darba tiesības regulējošie normatīvie akti parasti satur noteikumu kopumu, kas regulē attiecības starp darbinieku apvienību vai darbinieku grupu un darba devēju. Biedrošanās brīvība ir nostiprināta arī vairākos starptautiskajos dokumentos, it īpaši ANO Cilvēktiesību deklarācijā, ANO Starptautiskajā paktā par pilsoniskajām un politiskajām tiesībām, ANO Starptautiskajā paktā par ekonomiskajām, sociālajām un kultūras tiesībām, Starptautiskās darba organizācijas 1948. gada Konvencijā par asociāciju brīvību un tiesību aizsardzību, apvienojoties organizācijās (C87) un 1949. gada Konvencijā par tiesībām uz apvienošanos organizācijās un kolektīvo līgumu slēgšanu (C98), kā arī Eiropas Cilvēktiesību konvencijā un Eiropas Sociālajā hartā. Vienlaikus starptautiskie dokumenti pieļauj ierobežojumu noteikšanu nacionālajā regulējumā attiecībā uz karavīru arodbiedrību brīvību. 2018. gadā Latvijas Brīvo arodbiedrību savienība savā grāmatā aktualizēja jautājumu par atsevišķos dienestos, tostarp militārajā dienestā, esošo personu tiesību ierobežojuma apvienoties arodbiedrībās atcelšanu [1, 75]. Raksta mērķis: analizējot starptautisko un nacionālo regulējumu attiecībā uz arodbiedrību dibināšanu militārajā dienestā, kā arī Latvijā pašreiz pastāvošo karavīru tiesību aizsardzības sistēmu, izdarīt secinājumus par karavīru arodbiedrības izveidošanas lietderību. Raksta sagatavošanā ir izmantota vēsturiskā, analītiskā, sistēmiskā un teleoloģiskā metode. The right to freedom of association is embodied in a number of international treaties, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (1948) No. 87, the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (1949) No. 98, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter. Simultaneously, the international treaties allow for a restriction on the freedom of military trade unions in the national regulation. In 2018, the issue of restriction of the right of soldiers to unite in trade unions was raised in Latvia in the book published by the Latvian Free Trade Union [1, 75]. The article examines the international and national regulation applicable to this issue, the current national system and procedures which are established for the protection of the rights of soldiers and concludes by expressing opinion about the need to establish a military trade union in Latvia. In the Author’s opinion, existing restriction on the establishment of a military trade union in the national regulation is compensated by the following rights: 1) the right to nominate a representative from among themselves to defend the interests of soldiers for the defense of their interests and settlement of household issues; 2) the right to be a member of associations and foundations of a non-political nature, as well as to establish military associations and foundations and to participate in other non-political activities, if such activity does not interfere with the performance of the duties of the service; 3) the right to lodge a service complaint within the framework of the National Armed Forces and to apply a complaint, as well as to receive a consultation from a structural unit which is independent of the National Armed Forces – the General Inspection of the Ministry of Defense; 4) the right to submit a complaint to a court, including a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court; 5) there is an effective mechanism for evaluating and controlling observance of law of disciplinary measures provided by both the General Inspection of the Ministry of Defense and the Appeal Commission of the Ministry of Defense; 6) the National Armed Forces are actively involved in the development of external and internal regulation. In addition, soldiers may make proposals to improve the content of the projects of external regulations within the framework of the public participation process, as well as by submitting proposals or suggestions to deputies. Although the application of strikes is considered to be an effective mean of leveling out the inequality of power between the employee and the employer, the prohibition of strikes among the military personnel is justified because the armed forces have the task of providing permanent and uninterrupted national defense. The existing restriction on military representatives to intervene in the performance of military service duties, as well as the lack of authorisation for military representatives to intervene in matters of military discipline, are reasonable restrictions, as such actions would reduce the effectiveness of the tasks of the armed forces. The Constitutional Court of Latvia also recognised that procedural manifestations of the exercise of freedom, such as the right to organise and participate in strikes and the possible influence of trade unions on the conduct of the service or participation in disciplinary liability issues, may have an impact on the State or public safety interests. Thus, the Author concludes that effective mechanisms have been established for the protection and representation of the interests of the soldiers. If the creation of a military trade union was allowed, it would duplicate the existing procedures on many issues. The imposition of restrictions on activities that could hinder or interfere in the issues of the discipline liability and in the performance of tasks of the armed forces will exclude effective means of influencing the employer. Therefore, the effectiveness of such unions would be debatable.