Fierce anti-unionism in the Poti port

(May 2008)

Article published in "Union View" n°9, May 2008, also available on http://www.ituc-csi.org/spip.php?article2144

Fierce anti-unionism in the Poti port

The town of Poti on the Black Sea is notable for the extreme anti-union attitude of its port’s management. In just over a year, the number of workers affiliated to the union has shrunk from 1,200 (out of a workforce of 1,300) to just 20. The new labour code has left its mark.

"The first unjustified dismissals took place in July 2006, just after the new labour code came into force," recalls Eduard Korkia, president of the Poti dockworkers’union. “Union delegates were not directly targeted, but from then on some of the workers began to worry they would lose their jobs, and would no longer openly support the union. They waited to see the outcome of our dispute with management before getting more involved. Management hasn’t stopped attacking us ever since. In December 2006, for example, it refused to continue the check-off system for trade union dues, which led to a sharp fall in the number of paying members.”

Encouraged by the neoliberal legislation, the port’s management stepped up its attacks on all forms of social dialogue. Vakhtang Tirkia, the vice-president of the Poti port workers’ union: “The director, Lasha Akhaladze, unilaterally ended the collective agreement on 1 January 2007, even though an article in the agreement stipulated that it would remain in force ‘by default’ until the next agreement had been negotiated. From then on, he didn’t reply to any of our letters, whether they were about union demands, a proposal for a meeting, or a request to allow some of the workers to attend a seminar organised by the ITUC in Poti in August 2007.”

According to trade union witnesses, the Poti port authorities have used their security guards to threaten the workers that they will lose their jobs if they support the union. This hounding of the unions is probably linked to the plans to turn Poti into a free trade zone from May 2008. At the end of 2007, the trade union leaders tried to revive their movement. “On 15 October 2007, as the privatisation of the port was moving ahead with candidate submissions, we held a meeting of about 60 workers during the lunch break. The purpose of the meeting was to talk to them about our demands (a pay rise before the arrival of the new investor, guarantees about job security...) and to show the employer that we still had the support of rank and file workers,” explains Eduard Korkia.

The union sent management a letter explaining its demands and asking for a reply within ten days. But, continues Vakhtang Tirkia: “Instead of getting a reply, five trade union officers were dismissed on 25 October. We didn’t know that our 15 October meeting had been discretely filmed by persons with close ties to management. Management did not dare dismiss everyone who attended the meeting, but with the help of the video recording it identified the most active trade unionists in order to get rid of them.”

Sign or get the sack

The dismissals made a lot of workers uneasy. Management tried to reassure them by asking each of them to sign a letter which, supposedly, called for the workers’ reinstatement. “In reality, most of the workers couldn’t read the letter,” says Mamuka Shengelia, a member of the port workers’ union executive committee. “Representatives of the employer asked them to sign a white sheet attached to the letter, putting pressure on them to sign quickly, without reading the details. Although there was a paragraph at the end of the letter calling for the reinstatement of the five dismissed workers, the preceding paragraphs were anti-union. The letter said, for example, that as management did everything in the workers’ interests, there was no need for a union. 800 workers signed the letter. Some of those who refused were shown their notice of dismissal, as management clearly wanted to make them understand that they risked being sacked. Eleven workers who refused to sign were finally dismissed, on 1 December, with no official explanation.”

In face of these repeated attacks, two union leaders from the port decided to go on hunger strike, triggered by the management’s decision to deny access to the trade union office located in one of the port’s buildings. Eduard Korkia was one of them: “We began our hunger strike in front of the building. We were asking for a meeting with the port director, for the reinstatement of the five dismissed trade unionists, for a reply to our letter setting out our demands and to regain access to our union premises. After five days on hunger strike, and with the help of the president of the GTUC, who came to Poti to meet some of the port managers, we gained partial satisfaction of these demands. Management promised to reinstate the five dismissed trade unionists provided they did not have a criminal record. So far, however, none of them have been reinstated. Only two of the eleven workers who lost their jobs in the second wave of dismissals have been

reinstated.”

The trade unionists of the Poti port hope that privatisation will result in an employer who is less opposed to social dialogue. At the beginning of April they lost a court case they had taken against the current management to demand the reinstatement of the dismissed trade unionists. They continue to receive the support of the ITUC, which has repeatedly urged the government to intervene to ensure the reinstatement of the workers unfairly dismissed from Poti.

                                                                                                Samuel Grumiau