Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1993, Publication: 80th ILC session (1993)

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) - Iran (Islamic Republic of) (Ratification: 1964)

A Government representative first made it clear that his Government attached significant importance to the ILO, to international labour standards and to the work of the supervisory machinery. First, regarding discrimination based on religion, he stated that the statutory provisions in the public sector did not permit any discrimination in employment based on conviction, that there had been no case of dismissal based on conviction, and that a complaint on such dismissal, if any, could be filed under section 11 of the Administrative Justice Tribunal Code. As to the pension issue, section 76 of the Social Security Act and the Retirement Act of 1986 provided for age and length of service as the only criteria for eligibility for pension, therefore without any discrimination. He stated that 101 Baha'is were currently receiving pensions and that files in this regard would be submitted for examination. Regarding the question of dismissal, the existing legislative provisions prohibited any dismissal based on conviction, sex, colour, race, ethnic or social origin, and measures for reinstatement by the competent courts and authorities existed in the law. As to the closure of Baha'i businesses, section 39 of the Trades Regulatory Act concerning the closure of business units treated all nationals equally. The Prime Minister's Directive of 1989 had been formally re-endorsed by the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran and practical measures had been taken accordingly, including the non-discrimination concerning Baha'i businesses or education both in schools and universities. He denied the alleged closure of Baha'i classes in January 1991. He also denied the discrimination against the Zoroastrians including the right to conduct business and expressed the Government's willingness to examine any alleged case. He further stated that the circular of the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council had never been issued. Regarding point 7 of the comment of the Committee of Experts the document requested would be supplied. As to point 8, the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran required the judicial body to arrange courts according to the rites and religious regulations when the issue concerned civil statutes. With regard to Freemasonry, he stated that these organizations had terminated their activities in the country and that any complaint concerning dismissal on the basis of the membership would be received by the Administrative Tribunal. Secondly, regarding the situation of women workers, he provided the latest statistics on women pursuing higher education (3,286 women in a number of engineering and agricultural fields; the four state polytechnic universities had 533, 597, 836 and 557 women students, respectively, of which 34 studied metallurgy, 743 studied in agricultural courses and 559 studied law). He thus denied the alleged sexual discrimination in higher education or in vocational training and stated that the restrictions on women's occupations was meant to protect them from hazardous work. Regarding judges, women could obtain various judicial positions according to their judicial rank without restriction based on sex. He expressed the determination of his Government and the judiciary to promote the participation of women in judicial activities and mentioned the existence of more than 250 women attorneys. Thirdly, as regards general measures concerning equality, he stated that section 6 of the new Labour Code, like its section 38, originated in articles 19 and 20 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran which prohibited any kind of discrimination in employment and occupation. Section 6 of the Labour Code extended the protection of the Labour Code against discrimination on all the grounds set out in Article 1, paragraph 1(a) of the Convention including religion, political opinion and social origin.

The Employers' members first recalled that the case had been discussed in this Committee for many years although there had been interruption for two years, and that it had been included in a special paragraph, sometimes indicating the continued failure to implement. They referred to the legal texts mentioned in the Committee of Experts' report and requested the Government for further clarification concerning, for example, the circular of the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council of 25 February 1991 of which the publication and even the existence did not appear evident given the statement of the Government representative, and the directive of the Ministry of Labour of 8 December 1981 which seemed to have been repealed, and the text of which containing the report would be very useful for the work of the Committee of Experts as well as of this Committee. In addition, the Employers' members would be grateful to the Government if it would clarify how the Prime Minister's directive mentioned in the Committee of Experts' report had been regulated or modified, and if it was the case, if it had been repealed. Concerning the situation of women workers, the Employers' members stated that they could not comment on the statistical data supplied by the Government representative which, at first sight, appeared to indicate that women workers were no longer subject to the discrimination raised in the report of the Committee of Experts. They referred to the paragraphs of the Experts' comments regarding general measures concerning equality, and wondered, in light of the Government's statement that the Labour Code responded to all the requirements of the Convention, whether the Code had been amended since the comments of the Experts illustrated divergencies between the two texts. The Employers' members concluded by emphasizing that the attitude of the Government as was demonstrated in the statement of its representative contrasted with those of its predecessors who either denied the facts mentioned by the Committee of Experts or defended their viewpoint by stating that the measures taken by the Government were sufficient to the extent that they conformed with Islamic law, or combined these two attitudes.

The Workers' members appreciated the detailed replies provided by the Government representative, stressing, however, that the replies did not enable them to have a clear idea of the situation. Certain facts mentioned in the Committee of Experts' report - for example, the case of the circular of February 1991 pointed out by the Employers' members - were denied by the Government representative. Nevertheless, they were pleased to see the Government's willingness to supply the relevant information and documents to the Committee of Experts. Concerning the situation of women workers, they stated that the extensive information including statistics supplied by the Government should be examined by the Committee of Experts and be supplemented by separate figures on each economic sector, occupation or other relevant classification. As for point 13 of the above report, they noted that the exceptions only concerned the ban on women workers from carrying heavy loads or being present in dangerous places or other similar cases. They requested the Government to supply particulars in this regard, as well as on the situation of women occupying the highest posts in the judiciary. As regards the general measures concerning equality, the Workers' members also requested the Government to clarify further its indication that the national legislation would be perfectly in line with Article 1, paragraph 1(a) of the Convention. Furthermore, they appreciated the positive signs indicated in point 16 of the Committee of Experts' report. Finally, they hoped to receive more detailed information on the cases examined by the Supreme Labour Council, including examples of some representative cases. The Workers' members concluded by emphasizing that the Committee should remain prudent and insist that the Government should do more, provide more detailed information and intensify the dialogue with the Committee.

The Workers' member of the Netherlands stated that he had difficulty in reconciling the past and present positions of the Government. First, he wondered about the possible change of attitude of the Government towards international labour standards, especially whether to what extent it now considered them universal. Concerning the Baha'is, he recalled that in the past the Government had considered them to be spies and that, according to the statement of the Government representative, they could now receive the pensions which were legally due to them. Regarding the situation of women workers, he requested supplementary information on the Islamic Councils of Labour.

The Workers' member of Germany stated that he would be grateful to the Government for indicating the percentages corresponding to the figures which its representative had mentioned in his statement so that this Committee would be able to assess the situation of women workers. He wanted the Committee of Experts to receive the necessary information concerning the education and further education plan referred to by the Government. Finally, he agreed with the last speaker concerning uncertainty of the universal value of international labour standards for the Government.

The Government representative reaffirmed his Government's willingness to deal with the observations of the Committee of Experts frankly and sincerely. He reiterated the Government's efforts to provide the required information as much as possible including, for example, the copy of the text which endorsed the Prime Minister's directive and the directive of the Ministry of Labour. As regards the Islamic Labour Councils, he stated that the membership of these Councils was not a profession but of an advisory nature and that the philosophy of these Councils was to prepare programmes and establish coordination for the progress of workshops with the participation of workers and employers. He also referred to section 131 of the new Labour Code concerning the right to establish or join workers' or employers' organizations without discrimination. Regarding women workers, he stressed the importance that his Government attached to equality of opportunity between both sexes in the reconstruction and renovation after the war of 1981-89, and referred also to the principle of no wage discrimination based on sex, provided in the Labour Code. He further denied the existence of the circular of the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council. He finally referred to the Asian and Pacific Labour Ministers' Conference hosted by the Islamic Republic of Iran as an example of the Government's commitment to the universal standards.

The Committee heard the information submitted by the Government and took note of its statement that it adhered to the principles of the ILO. It also took note of the Government's statement that in the country there had been no discriminatory dismissals, that the social security system applied equally without any discrimination and that religious minorities were treated on an equal footing with nationals. The Government had also indicated that being a Freemason was not punishable by law and that vocational training for women was constantly increasing. Nevertheless, the Committee continued to express its concern because the discrepancies previously pointed out between the law and practice and the Convention had not been removed, as they should have been. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would accomplish the removal of the conditions that constitute discriminatory treatment in the recruitment of members of certain religious groups which had been discussed in this Committee on many occasions and on which no progress seemed to have been made. The Committee also expressed its concern about the situation relating to women workers, in particular, the possibilities of equality as regards recruitment, although there were many women undertaking university studies. The Committee hoped that the next report from the Government would indicate in particular what steps had been taken to annul the circular of the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council of 25 February 1991 relating to recruitment of people who belonged to the Baha'i faith and that it would contain information requested by the Committee of Experts on progress made to eliminate restrictions on work by women which had been noted by the Committee of Experts. The Committee trusted that, on the basis of the detailed information announced by the Government, the Committee of Experts and this Committee would be able to note real progress in the very near future on the subjects that had been commented upon by the Committee of Experts.