Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Bangladesh (Ratification: 1972)

The Committee notes the Government’s report for the period ending on 30 October 2006. It also notes the observations on the application of the Convention received on 28 August 2006 from the Jatiya Sramik League, the Bangladesh Trade Union Kendra, the Jatiya Sramik Federation Bangladesh, the Jatiyo Sramik Jote, the Bangladesh Free Trade Union Congress, the Bangladesh Labour Federation and the Bangladesh Jatiya Sramik Federation. The Committee notes that the report sent by the above organizations is based on research carried out from May to August 2006 by the Bangladesh Occupational Safety, Health and Environment Foundation (OSHE) and the Centre for Corporate Accountability. It addresses matters raised by the Government in its report and draws, inter alia, on interviews with inspectors and workers and on available literature.

1. Article 10 of the Convention. Budget and number of inspectors. According to the abovementioned organizations, the budget for labour inspection is clearly insufficient despite a recent increase. Furthermore, there are not enough inspectors in charge of enforcement to meet requirements, as many posts remain vacant and inspectors specialized in particular issues. In terms of human and material resources for the inspection of occupational safety and health, there has been no change in the last 20 years, whereas the number of registered premises has increased by 67 per cent and the number of workers in the same period by 140 per cent. Ever since a major industrial accident caused 58 deaths in a garment factory, inspectors, including dock inspectors, now inspect only garment factories.

2. Article 7. Training of labour inspectors. According to the abovementioned organizations, inspectors receive one month’s induction training at the Industrial Relations Institute, which may be the only training they receive in the course of their career; this is inadequate in view of the great variety of industries and the production technologies used in them.

3. Article 11. Availability of material resources and refunding of transport costs. According to the above organizations, inspectors’ offices are not well equipped, inspectors do not have access to vehicles in order to undertake inspections, expenses are paid only if the factory is within 5 kilometres of the divisional office and the process for repayment of expenses can be very long-winded. More often than not, inspectors are unable to take with them certain types of equipment for technical inspections. In some regions, where inspectors have to travel up to 200 kilometres to visit a factory, they expect employers to pay their expenses.

4. Article 3, paragraph 1(b) and (c). Provision of technical advice to workers and employers, and improvement of labour legislation. The above organizations regret that the technical advice provided to workers and employers is limited and there is no mechanism to ensure that such guidance, particularly on occupational safety and health, where there has been no new legislation since 1979 is presented clearly.

5. Article 6 and Article 15(c). Probity and observance of confidentiality regarding the source of complaints. There appears to be a climate of suspicion regarding the probity of inspectors, who are under no legal obligation to refrain from disclosing the identity of the author of a complaint or indicating that the inspection took place as a result of a complaint. Consequently, workers prefer not to report breaches of the law by the employer for fear of reprisals.

6. Article 17. Prompt legal proceedings. Although, under the legislation, employers who break the law may be prosecuted immediately and without previous warning, in practice it would appear that inspectors systematically give employers an opportunity to remedy matters before prosecuting. Inspectors prosecute cases themselves without any help from lawyers. However, they seldom do so because of constraints such as these and in particular when cases are adjourned time and again and courts are far away from the main office.

7. Article 18. Adequate penalties. According to the abovementioned report, the law provides for a maximum fine which is negligible in amount and thus too small to provide the appropriate deterrent effect required by the Convention.

The Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to send any information or comments it deems useful in reply to each of the points raised by the abovementioned organizations, together with such relevant documentation as it is able to provide.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on the application of certain provisions of the Convention.