Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1997, Publication: 85th ILC session (1997)

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

A Government representative expressed his Government's commitment to international labour standards and his wish for a positive dialogue in the Committee. He pointed out that the Committee of Experts, in paragraph 1 of its observation, had referred to the Government's detailed report as well as to the documentation and statistics supplied. In the course of the last year, the Government had furnished an unprecedented amount of information. This meant that it had made an effort to work with the ILO supervisory bodies and it appeared that this cooperation had enabled the Committee of Experts to be better informed of the realities. While several long-standing issues had been settled, some issues remained pending which could be resolved by further improvement in the Government's reporting or by other necessary cooperation.

Paragraph 2 of the report of the Committee of Experts summarized the discussion in the Conference Committee last year and the replies of the Government and indicated that the Committee looked forward to receiving, in the Government's next report, information concerning contacts made with the Office, with regard to technical cooperation. The Government representative gave an assurance that the next report would definitely contain that information. In fact, such contacts had taken place and had led to concrete technical cooperation, which was quite a new element in the Government's relations with the ILO supervisory bodies: ILO staff at headquarters had had a three-day meeting with members of the Labour and Social Affairs Commission of the Parliament; in April 1997, a tripartite training seminar was held in Teheran with ILO assistance. Both events discussed a number of fundamental ILO Conventions, in particular Convention No. 111. The training was targeted towards those officials responsible for the application of the Convention, including Directors-General and officers of the Ministry of Labour's central and provincial departments, and covered various aspects of the Convention and its application. In the following days, the ILO mission received first-hand information from different parties. It discussed the national mechanisms of implementation of the Labour Code, including the non-discrimination provisions, as well as arbitration mechanisms with the Director-General of Labour and Social Affairs of Greater Teheran, which had the largest industrial concentration in the country and with representatives of workers' and employers' organizations. The mission also spoke with the head of the women's NGO network. Separate meetings took place with women officials supervising projects and activities for the employment and job placement of women and for the enhancement of the economic and social situation of rural women. Finally, the mission also visited two of the largest factories. It could thus be seen that this technical cooperation had generated an extensive dialogue with the ILO supervisory bodies in the course of one year. It was to be hoped that such effective cooperation could be continued.

Referring to paragraph 5 of the Committee of Experts' report, the Government representative pointed out that the Committee of Experts had noted with interest the information on persons of faiths other than Islam gaining access to university education and sitting on Islamic Labour Councils and the existence of the various types of labour organizations. In paragraph 6 of the report, the Committee of Experts welcomed the clarification of a very important issue with regard to a directive, which had been a matter of controversy for several years. A copy of the directive repealing the previous directive was now with the ILO. Paragraphs 7 and 8 had noted with interest some relevant developments. Paragraph 9 of the report referred to a communication received from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, which had been forwarded to the Government and which would be considered at the next meeting of the Committee of Experts.

The speaker assured the Committee that his Government would supply a detailed and substantive report to the Committee of Experts. The fact that his Government's detailed report of last year had been duly examined by the Committee of Experts could only encourage further cooperation and dialogue with this body. It was to be hoped that a similar positive dialogue could take place in this Committee.

The Workers' members thanked the Government representative for his brief comments. The Government had provided a detailed report and it was to be hoped that the dialogue with the Committee of Experts and this Committee would be pursued. This case had been discussed for several years, last year, most recently when, following a thorough discussion and considering the fact that the Government was not committed to accept a direct contacts mission, this case had been mentioned in a special paragraph of the report. The Government appeared still not to have accepted such a mission and this would surely have an impact on the type of conclusions to be adopted which might lead the Government to reconsider in the future the possibility of such a mission, even though the Government seemed to prefer technical assistance. The impression remained that the Government was trying to gain time since technical assistance and direct contacts missions have different purposes: direct contacts missions tried to evaluate the real situation as well as the practical impact of the measures mentioned in the Government's report. Detailed reports were necessary but not sufficient. Like technical assistance, they allowed the dialogue to be continued and encouraged mutual understanding. But a detailed report could also veil the real situation. Legal provisions could be repealed by other provisions or by other executory decisions; their impact could be neutralized by an institutionalized parallel power which appeared to have constitutional legitimacy and powerful means of pressure irrespective of the parliamentary majority. The observation of the Committee of Experts was very detailed but most of the information regarding the practical impact of the various measures emanated mainly from the Government itself. Other information, contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the observation, shed quite another light on the situation. It was indispensable for the ILO and the Committee of Experts to be able to analyse this information to assess the real situation. A direct contacts mission would be the most appropriate way considering the fact that tripartism which would permit a confrontation of options did not seem to be really operational in the country.

As regards recruitment, the Government implicitly admitted that a priority was granted to those practising the official religion and minimized this fact. The Government acknowledged that this priority applied to teachers who numbered over 1 million and therefore constituted an important part of the workforce. Moreover, Act No. 14928 of 7 June 1996 extended this recruitment priority to the whole of the public service as well as public enterprises and major industrial enterprises. New legislation had extended this criterion even further to certain liberal professions such as membership of the Bar for lawyers. Furthermore, the Government had not replied to the comment of the Committee of Experts on the publication of discriminatory job offers. In the teaching field, the conditions imposed on the schools, which were established by religious minorities, forced them to use leaders belonging to the official religion.

As regards discrimination against minorities, according to certain information, the Baha'is were simply considered as terrorists by those in power in the regime and 200 of them had been executed since 1979 while thousands of others had been imprisoned or dismissed. The United Nations Special Rapporteur who went to the country in December 1995 collected statements from Baha'is who declared that they were victims of discrimination in employment. Other sources revealed the assassination of Christian priests without the Government doing its utmost to find the perpetrators. As regards discrimination on the basis of religion and the Islamic Labour Councils, paragraph 5 of the observation noted the explanation of the Government according to which workers had the choice between three forms of representation: the setting up of trade unions, the election of representatives or the setting up of these Councils. According to the Government's statistics, the majority of workers had opted for these Islamic Labour Councils. But these figures must be viewed in the general legal context and in the framework of labour relations. According to the Labour Code, the Ministry of Labour had the responsibility to set up these Islamic Labour Councils in every enterprise that employed more than 35 workers. Therefore, choice did not exist in these enterprises. In enterprises with less than 35 workers, the choice was not really free since religious or political authorities could designate a representative. It was these Islamic Labour Councils which designated representatives to consultative commissions as well as the delegation to the International Labour Conference. Unless proven wrong by information from the Government, the Committee of Experts could only come to the conclusion that discrimination was institutionalized in the labour relations system.

As regards discrimination on the basis of sex in the judicial system, it was the Committee of Experts' task to analyse the real scope of the amendment to the Act on Appointments to the Judiciary mentioned by the Government. According to available information, women only held advisory and support posts in the judicial system and in the departments for the protection of children, being excluded from the judiciary in the real sense. In more general terms, it was important to urge the Government to provide more detailed information on education and the training of women as well as their active participation in the labour market in its next report, and to provide the relevant statistics.

In conclusion, the real situation had to be clarified as a matter of urgency. The information provided by the Government, as detailed as it was, was not fully convincing. The Committee of Experts still had to undertake an in-depth analysis regarding several provisions and the practice concerning employment. Finally, a direct contacts mission was indispensable to assess the situation. If the Government were to refuse to request such a mission, this case should be mentioned in a special paragraph.

The Employers' members recalled that this case had been the subject of comments by the Committee of Experts for the past 15 years, that it had already been discussed by this Committee ten times before and that it had been mentioned in a special paragraph on six occasions. As always, the Government representative demonstrated a cooperative attitude, but he did not contribute any new information. The reference to technical cooperation was a positive element, but it was questionable whether technical cooperation could replace the sending of a direct contacts mission as suggested by this Committee last year. The essence of the observation of the Committee of Experts was contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 which concerned discrimination based on sex, religion and political opinion. Although the general population of the Islamic Republic of Iran had grown, the average number of women active in the labour market had dropped. The Government seemed to rebut this argument. It was, however, noted that priority in employment was given to persons faithful to the Islamic religion, and that this criterion was applied not only in the ministries, but also in the public sector as a whole, as well as in all parastatal enterprises which represented a particularly large sector in the country. The statistics concerning new university entrants did not in themselves constitute sufficient arguments to refute the Committee of Experts' comments. Furthermore, job advertisements published in newspapers evidenced a consistent practice to give priority to Muslims. As regards the theoretical existence of three forms of worker representation, they were restricted by other provisions and in practice. The Government's response was also insufficient as regards discrimination on the basis of religion against the Baha'is; this had also been noted by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Question of Religious Intolerance. A clarification was urgently required. According to the Government, section 1117 of the Civil Code, prohibiting women to work without the permission of their husbands, applied only to Muslims. Yet, as the overwhelming majority of the population was Muslim, this discriminatory provision in fact was applicable to almost everyone. As the Workers' members had pointed out, women were excluded from judicial functions. The Government stressed that the number of women in the active labour force continued to increase, although certain dangerous types of work remained prohibited to them. Bearing in mind the evolution of the notion of dangerous work, greater care had to be taken in order to avoid such protective provisions being used as a pretext for discrimination on the basis of sex. The sending of a direct contacts mission appeared to be the appropriate procedure to evaluate the situation on each of these points. Last year, the Government representative had stated that he was not in a position to commit himself on behalf of his Government in this respect. Today he considered that such a mission was not necessary. The recent elections had brought a new president to office, but it seemed precarious to offer any predictions as regards the political evolution because, contrary to what was the case in parliamentary democracies, in the Islamic Republic of Iran there were supranational authorities whose legitimacy was not derived from public elections. This was not a value judgement but a statement of fact. The conclusions of this Committee should appear in a special paragraph of its report, and the Government should be urged to request a direct contacts mission as soon as possible.

The Workers' member of Spain stated that he was concerned by the content of section 1117 of the Civil Code which permitted a husband to prohibit his wife from taking up employment contrary to the interest of the family, his interests or his reputation. There were legal proceedings which permitted the husband to claim these rights before the courts, which in practice amounted to placing the wife as well as the rest of the family under the guardianship of the husband. As the Employers' members declared, this was institutionalized discrimination, which should be clearly condemned. The Government contradicted itself when it stated that the Iranian Constitution protected the right of all to employment while the Civil Code applied only to those married according to the Islamic tradition. These provisions applied, in fact, to the majority of the Iranians and in the Islamic Republic of Iran there did not seem to be any distinction between religion and the Civil Code. The fact that the Civil Code did not provide for equal treatment created a situation which was contrary to the Convention. He recalled that this case had been discussed for several years in the context of discrimination on the basis of religion against Freemasons, Zoroastrians and the Baha'is. Although the observations of the Committee of Experts mainly concerned the Baha'is, the problems of other minorities suffering discrimination should not be ignored. To conclude, he recommended that the Committee urge the Government to accept a direct contacts mission.

The Workers' member of the Netherlands supported what other Workers' members had stated on the case and indicated that the format of the Committee of Experts' observation posed difficulties for him since normally it took note of the Government's report, analysed the information and reached conclusions accordingly. This year, the Committee of Experts had merely noted the information provided by the Government except in paragraph 6, and mentioned the debate on the case last year in paragraph 2. It was not clear to him whether all the information available had been analysed. Thus the guidance which normally emanated from the Committee of Experts to the Conference Committee was absent. It would have been preferable if the Committee of Experts had specified, on the basis of clear arguments, why the situation was so complex and serious that it warranted a direct contacts mission. He hoped that the Committee of Experts would shed light on this next year. He supported the Workers' proposal regarding the form of the Committee's conclusions.

The Workers' member of Turkey asserted that in the Islamic Republic of Iran there was still systematic discrimination in employment and occupation on the basis of sex, religion and political opinion. For example, discrimination on the basis of sex was based on Islamic law, the Shari'a, under which men were considered to be superior to women in intelligence, in knowledge and in power. He wondered how equality in employment and occupation could prevail in a State based on a religion which considered women to be inferior to men. Moreover this discrimination was reinforced by legislation, including sections 899 to 902, 1122 to 1123, 1133 to 1134, 1169 and 1180 of the Civil Code. With regard to discrimination on the basis of religion, he considered that it could take three distinct forms: first of all, discrimination against officially recognized religions, in legislation but mainly in practice; secondly, discrimination against religions that were not officially recognized, which was the case of the Baha'is; and thirdly, discrimination against Moslems who did not appear to fulfil the requirements of Islam since, under the Government Ordinance dated 13 August 1995, those who had a religion, but who were known not to observe religious standards, had no right to work. He asserted that, unless there was a separation of religion from the State, and unless there was a secular system based on genuine democracy, there was no hope of an end to discrimination in employment and occupation. He wholeheartedly supported the proposal of a special paragraph if a direct contacts mission was not accepted by the Government.

The Workers' member of Greece noted that it was difficult not to mention religion, as the object of the discussion was discrimination on the basis of religion. This was not the first time that this question had been raised and it seemed an easy way out to accuse those who provided information, such as Amnesty International, of not being impartial. No country had been able to base their prosperity on the exploitation and discrimination of elements of their population, and history had taught us that all powers which hold on to such practices had been overthrown. A certain progress was discernible, at least as regards the will demonstrated by the Government to pursue a dialogue. But if this only represented an interest by the Government to enhance its international image, this dialogue was useless. If the Government, however, was genuinely prepared to cooperate with the ILO in order to find solutions, it should show its willingness by requesting a direct contacts mission. He supported the common position of the Workers' and Employers' members in this respect, and requested a clear reply to this question from the Government representative.

The Workers' member of the United Kingdom pointed out that the statistics quoted in the Committee of Experts' report indicated that while the population had grown, the average number of women active in the labour market had dropped from 15.94 to 10.73 per 100 men between 1976 and 1991. The observation, quoting data from the Iranian Centre of Statistics in 1994, noted that in industrial enterprises there was an average of only 5.92 women working for every 100 men. Women appeared to be disappearing from public view. She also pointed out that some occupations and jobs were closed to women and wondered how the Government was tackling this situation. The vast majority of women had no right to employment without their husband's permission. Thus it was men, by and large, who determined whether and in what jobs women could be employed. It was not enough to have a means of complaint about this situation, since it was not reasonable to expect women to be able to have access to justice this way. It was the practice itself that should be stopped by firm Government action. Moreover, although the Government representative had indicated that 97 women were currently serving throughout the country in various judicial positions, she wondered whether those women mentioned were active magistrates, judges, advocates or were they administrators? The question was, did women actually dispense justice in the courts? On the issue of women in further and non-traditional education, the figures did not provide enough evidence to make a judgment about whether there had been progress. There was no information about baseline numbers, only percentages. This did not explain very much. However, these specific points could not be looked at without considering the overall context of lives of women in the Islamic Republic of Iran, a tough situation referred to in a report circulated at the 53rd Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (April 1997). In the light of this context where there was institutionalized and systematic segregation, repression and oppression of women, it was very hard to see how the requirements of Convention No. 111 could be respected.

The Workers' member of Italy noted that, while the observations of the Government were detailed, no concrete element was found, neither on the absence of equal opportunities for women, whose work was subordinated to the approval of the husband, and who had to put up with the daily pressure of religious groups, nor on discrimination against Baha'is and other religious minorities in the areas of teaching and access to employment. The principle of religious tolerance, contained in Article 23 of the Iranian Constitution, was violated in practice by a series of discriminatory provisions. The religious criteria for access to employment in the teaching sector had been extended to numerous other sectors and no signs of softening this position had been noted since last year's discussion. However, the acceptance of technical assistance from the ILO, as well as the visit of the United Nations Special Rapporteur to the country, were encouraging signs. Nevertheless, only a well prepared direct contacts mission could really improve the situation.

The Government members of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia stated that, in their opinion, this Committee should not deal with political and religious matters.

The Government representative indicated that a lot of things that had been said in this Committee were a discredit to the ILO, its supervisory bodies and the future discussions on the strengthening of the supervisory system. Many interventions were in fact political statements made against a democratically elected Government, and not factual statements based on the report of the Committee of Experts. He saw no reason to respond to these political statements. Moreover, although many participants had indicated that not enough information or statistics had been provided by the Government, this was not true since it had furnished a report of over 100 pages to the Committee of Experts. It was to be emphasized that a UN report which had been referred to by a previous speaker was not in fact a report of the United Nations. Moreover, the statement about the oppression and repression of women came straight from a paper being distributed in the ILO by a group from a country near the Islamic Republic of Iran. He had hoped for dialogue and had noted that the Committee of Experts had thoroughly examined the last, detailed report. But this Committee's debate included highly political allegations, such as the statements on the lack of tripartism, non-elected posts and the assassination of priests, all of which he strongly denied. Even the allegations on section 11A of the Civil Code did not take account of the text's legal provisions which gave the same right to both husbands and wives to take such a case to the courts; in some other countries this also occurred. He noted that when another speaker challenged the tallying of statistics, it was because that speaker was using data from unreliable sources. It was not true, as intimated by an earlier speaker, that his Government had accepted the visit of a direct contacts mission to the country last year. On the question of such a mission, the report of the Committee of Experts correctly represented the Government's position. It was obvious that, given the tenor of the debate which had just taken place, a direct contacts mission would not be welcomed. In fact, there was a practical reason for this: the new administration would not take office until next month. He concluded that he was proud of his country and his religion, while at the same time respecting all religions.

The Employers' members stated that they were disappointed by the explanations provided by the Government representative, as well as his protest concerning the allusion to issues related to religion. This was not a proper way to conduct the dialogue. At issue here was not a discussion on religious matters, but problems related to the application of a Convention which had been ratified by his country and in which it was provided that religion was grounds for illegal discrimination in employment and occupation. No new information had been provided in response to the Committee of Experts' observations which had been communicated to the Government two months ago. The Government representative had not responded to the proposal concerning a direct contacts mission. The need to urgently send such a mission should once again be stressed, and the importance of this case justified the inclusion of the conclusions in a special paragraph in the report of this Committee.

The Workers' members declared that they were also disappointed by the lack of responses from the Government representative. New information should be provided to the Committee of Experts. In their opinion, there was nothing in the debate which discredited either the reputation of the ILO or that of the supervisory system, as the subject under discussion was a ratified Convention, providing, inter alia, for protection against discrimination based on religion. It was regrettable that the Government representative did not respond to the proposal made last year to request a direct contacts mission. This disappointing and incomprehensible attitude stood in stark contrast to the Government's statements concerning its willingness to have dialogue with the supervisory bodies. It was not enough to send reports but some progress in practice had to be demonstrated. In this context, the sending of a direct contacts mission was needed more than ever. This case should be included in a special paragraph in the report of the Committee.

The Committee took note of the observations that the Committee of Experts had been formulating for several years, the oral information presented by the Government representative as well as the detailed discussion in the Committee. It also took note of the explanations provided by the Government for not heeding the offer of a direct contacts mission, as well as on technical assistance which had been provided in accordance with the priority given by the Government. The Committee noted with concern that in spite of concrete initiatives and time which had elapsed, violations of the provisions of this as well as other Conventions subsisted, and required additional information. The Committee therefore expressed the firm hope that it would be informed of the measures that would be adopted in order to eliminate any form of discrimination in job offers as well as in the criteria applied by the competent authorities to declare certain groups illegal. The Committee notes the statistical information on the employment of religious minorities and women, the information on the constitutional provision according to which it is forbidden to question people about their beliefs and the amendment permitting women to hold certain functions in the judiciary. The Committee expressed the wish that the Government would continue to provide information on progress made until such time as the national legislation and practice were in full conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee strongly urged the Government to accept the direct contacts mission evoked last year, in order to be able to register rapid and noticeable progress. The Committee decided to mention this case in a special paragraph of its report.