Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Bangladesh (Ratification: 1972)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2017, Publication: 106th ILC session (2017)



The Government provided the following written information.

The Bangladesh case on implementation of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), has been examined several times by the Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS), including a recent examination in 2013 with follow-up examinations in 2015 and 2016. After the 105th International Labour Conference, there were a series of meetings and consultations with the tripartite constituents to share and discuss the labour rights concerns as specified in the CAS conclusions/special paragraph. A Committee was formed in a meeting of the Tripartite Consultative Council (TCC) to examine the ILO special paragraph and recommend required actions. The committee submitted its report with a specific set of actions to address the labour issues specified in the special paragraph, which was discussed in the TCC meeting held on 14 May 2017.

The actions taken by the Government on this year’s main concerns of the Committee of Experts are presented below:

Bangladesh EPZ Labour Act

In order to accommodate the ILO Committee of Experts’ expectations related to the law governing the EPZs, in an unprecedented move the draft law that had been vetted by the Cabinet and transferred for adoption to the Parliament (Standing Committee for Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs) has been recalled by the Government and will be subject to a thorough review with the objective of ensuring its alignment with ILO core Conventions to which Bangladesh is a party. In light of the recommendations submitted by the ILO, consideration is being given to deleting chapters IX, X and XV by making reference to chapter XIII of the BLA, thus providing rights of freedom of association to all workers. At the time of revising the EPZ Labour Act, issues regarding administration and inspection, all applicable laws will be carefully examined for prevalent concerns to be addressed. A draft of the new EPZ legislation will be shared by November 2017 after consultation with the ILO. The exceptional nature of these decisions reflects the high degree of trust that shapes the overall Bangladesh–ILO relationship. As of May 2017, a total of 232 WWAs (CBAs) have been formed. All registered WWAs (CBAs) in EPZs are performing their activities with full freedom/without any interference. During the last four years, the WWA within the EPZs submitted 351 Charters of Demands and all demands were settled amicably and agreements were signed accordingly, which indicates that EPZ workers are enjoying the right to organize and to collective bargaining. It is pertinent to mention that in EPZs, 60 social counsellors-cum-inspectors, 30 environmental counsellors-cum-inspectors, 45 industrial relations officers and 129 engineers are constantly inspecting compliance issues of EPZ factories. The EPZ inspection module has been developed by the International Finance Corporation in collaboration with the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority. Every EPZ has its own fire station and a strong firefighting team headed by the Director of the Fire Service and the Civil Defence Department of Bangladesh. Besides, three conciliators and three arbitrators are involved in dealing with unfair labour practices. Furthermore, eight Labour Courts and one Labour Appellate Tribunal have been designated to address labour-related disputes in the EPZs. As of May 2017, a total of 161 cases were filed, of which 86 were settled.

Consultation with the social partners to review the BLA, 2006

In the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006, significant amendments were adopted in 2013 after a wide range of consultations with the relevant stakeholders. The ILO Country Office for Bangladesh was also involved in the entire process. In order to get feedback from workers, employers and the ILO, tripartite consultations took place to reach a consensus on the amendment. Through this process 87 sections were amended and some new sections were incorporated in the amended Act. The Government is determined to take necessary steps to review the BLA to accommodate the observations of the ILO Committee of Experts. The recently established Tripartite Technical Committee that includes representatives of the Government, the employers and the workers, has been tasked with contributing to this revision and the matter has already been discussed in the meetings of the Committee held this year. The concerns of the ILO Committee of Experts will be examined and accommodated by the Technical Committee, based on tripartite consensus, taking the level of industrial development, socio-economic conditions and the institutional capacity of the country into account. Since the Bangladesh Labour Law is applicable to a large number of sectors, a wide range of consultations with stakeholders is necessary. However, the steps taken so far reflect the positive intentions of the Government to bring about necessary amendments in close consultation with the ILO and to share a concept draft in advance in December 2017.

Bangladesh Labour Rules (BLR)

Clarification of Rule 167(4): The Rule deals with the right to form trade unions for agricultural farm workers. Previously, agricultural farm workers did not have the right to form trade unions. With the amendment of the BLA 2006 in 2013, agricultural farm workers have been provided this right. Under Rule 167(4), workers engaged in agricultural farms may form groups of establishment. In the Rule, the requirement to form a trade union was set as 400 farm workers. It is to be mentioned that the issue has already been resolved through a gazette notification S.R.O. No. 02-ain/2017 dated 5 January 2017.

Review of other Rules: Further review of the BLA is under process. In line with the further amendment of the Act, the Rules may be updated.

Information on anti-union discrimination or unfair labour practice

The Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 (BLA 2006) (as amended in 2013) provides specific provisions to protect trade union activities. Anti-union discrimination or unfair labour practices (ULPs) in any form is a violation of law and subject to legal actions. The Department of Labour (DoL) is authorized to receive complaints on unfair labour practices. According to the provisions of the Labour Act, every aggrieved worker has the right to file complaints with the Department of Labour for remedial action against management for anti-union activities or ULPs. Every complaint received by the Department is addressed in due time. For example, from 2013 to 2016, 93 complaints relating to ULPs were lodged in JDL, Dhaka Office. Out of these, 80 complaints were settled: 35 criminal cases were filed, 45 complaints were settled amicably and 13 complaints were under investigation. The disposal rate was relatively high in the year 2016, where all of the 71 cases were settled with a disposal rate of 100 per cent.

Public database on anti-union discrimination or ULP

Recently, detailed outcomes of anti–union discrimination or ULP cases are being uploaded to the DoL’s website to make the process more transparent and publicly available. At present, the status of 69 cases of anti-union discrimination or ULPs are available on the website which consists of 46 settled cases and 23 ongoing cases.

Capacity building of labour officers to deal with anti-union discrimination cases

Intensive training programmes are being conducted under the “Social Dialogue and Harmonious Industrial Relations (SDIR)” project being implemented with the assistance of Sweden and Denmark and the ILO. In order to develop a credible, efficient and transparent system of arbitration and conciliation, the project is providing specialized training to labour officials. The project has already conducted 20 capacity-building training courses on handling cases of anti–union discrimination or ULPs where 125 labour officials, 33 judges, 30 lawyers and 166 employers have participated. Under an MOU, the labour officials from Bangladesh are being trained on grievance handling and conciliation at Nunian Training Institute, Singapore. Training courses on grievance handling are also being conducted in four Industrial Relation Institutes (IRIs) of the Government. By this time, 50 officials have completed training on anti-union discrimination or ULPs at IRIs.

Awareness raising and capacity building of workers and employers on social dialogue

Regular training programmes are also being conducted at four Industrial Relations Institutes (IRIs) and 29 Labour Welfare Centres (LWCs) under the Department of Labour. In 2016–17, around 11,000 participants received training in these institutes. The SDIR project is also assisting capacity building of workers and employers on social dialogue in 150 enterprises with newly formed unions to introduce a systematic approach for workplace cooperation in 350 non-unionized medium-sized RMG factories; conducting training on international labour standard (ILS) for mid-level management of 500 participating enterprises. With the support of the SDIR project, establishment of a “Workers’ Resource Centre” (WRC) has been initiated which will act as a centre of excellence for workers’ training and awareness building.

SOPs to address anti-union discrimination or ULPs

With the support of the SDIR project, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to address anti-union discrimination or ULPs have been drafted which will be adopted after consultation with the relevant stakeholders. It is hoped that the SOPs will facilitate easy handling and investigation of cases of anti-union discrimination or unfair labour practices in a transparent manner following a uniform procedure. The SOPs will be piloted in 500 enterprises with the support of the SDIR project.

Information on helpline for workers

A helpline for workers was established on 15 March 2015 in order to facilitate the lodging of complaints. The helpline has been launched on a pilot basis for RMG workers in a particular RMG intensive area (Ashulia). A total of 226 complaints from the RMG sector workers were received from Ashulia through this helpline. Among them, 142 complaints were settled by the inspectors and the rest – 84 complaints – are under process of settlement. Most of the complaints were on wages, overdue payments and job terminations. Although the helpline targets RMG workers in Ashulia, complaints received from other geographical areas and other industrial sectors are also being addressed by the Department of Inspection (DIFE). After gaining sufficient experience from the pilot operations, the Government will formally replicate/expand the model in other areas and industrial sectors.

Information on union registration

Applications for union registration are considered according to procedures that aim at creating a conducive environment for genuine labour representatives to set up their organizations. In relation to freedom of association the following positive changes took place through the amendment of the BLA 2006 in 2013:

- the obligation for submitting the list of workers to factory management before forming trade unions has been omitted;

- a provision for getting support from external experts for collective bargaining has been included;

- a single trade union in an enterprise is entitled to act as a collective bargaining agent.

With this amendment, trade union registration has increased remarkably. Before the amendment, there were 132 trade unions in the RMG sector. By this time, a total of 439 new trade unions have been registered in the RMG sector and as of 30 April 2017, there are 571 trade unions in this sector. The rate of success in trade union registration in Dhaka Division since the beginning of 2017 is 75 per cent. Before the amendment, there were 6,726 trade unions and 161 trade union federations registered in the country. By this time, 1,000 new trade unions and 14 trade union federations have been registered. As of 30 April 2017, there were a total of 7,726 registered trade unions and 175 trade union federations. In order to further ease the union registration process, an online registration system has been introduced on the website of the Department of Labour. The trade union registration process is clearly spelled out in the Law. There are some conditions to be fulfilled for registration of trade unions set forth in the BLA. If the applicants fail to meet this criterion the applications are lawfully rejected. From 2016, the causes of rejection of any application were communicated in a transparent manner by registered post within 60 days of rejection. No registration applications are kept pending. If the legal requirements are fulfilled, then the registration is given.

Public database on union registration

Recently, detailed outcomes of applications for trade union registration have been uploaded on the website of the DoL to make the process more transparent and publicly available. At present, the status of 171 trade union applications which includes 129 successful cases of application and 42 cases of rejection, is available at www.dol.gov.bd in the database section. It contains relevant information on the submission and resolution of registration requests, including the reasons for rejections of applications. The ILO Country Office, Dhaka is supporting development of the public database under the SDIR project.

Devising SOPs for union registration

To expedite the trade union registration process, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for trade union registration, which were developed with the assistance of the ILO and the Fair Work Commission (FWC), Australia under the SDIR project, were adopted on 17 May this year. Through the introduction of the SOPs, the time requirement for union registration has been reduced by five days from the Government part. During the development process of the SOPs, the SDIR project facilitated consultation with the stakeholders concerned. The Joint Directorate of Labour has already started SOPs on trade union registration, and training of internal staff on SOPs has begun. The adoption of the SOPs is just another clear indication of the Government’s willingness to comply with international labour standards. This démarche would be duly acknowledged by the ILO, development partners and stakeholders in Bangladesh. The union registration process broadly comprises of examination, rectification and decision on application registration. Previously, there was no timeline for each step. In the SOPs, a specific time frame has been set within which each activity must be completed. It is hoped that the SOPs will not only help expedite the trade union registration process but will also ensure greater transparency in the process.

Upgrade of the Department of Labour

Apart from legal instruments, the institution plays an important role in upholding freedom of association. For effective enforcement of the BLA, the Government of Bangladesh has initiated the upgrade of the Department of Labour. Through this initiative, the manpower of the DoL will be increased from 712 to 921. The process is at the final stage as consent from the Ministry of Public Administration (MOPA) and the Ministry of Finance has already been received.

Formation of the Tripartite Consultative Council (TCC) for the country’s RMG sector

Bangladesh has ratified ILO Convention No. 144 concerning tripartite consultation, which is at the heart of social dialogue. In line with the Convention, a TCC has been formed to deal with labour issues at all sectoral levels. Moreover, considering the importance of the RMG sector, the Government has formed a 20-member TCC solely for the country’s RMG sector on 12 March this year. The TCC (RMG) will examine/review the overall labour situation in the RMG sector and advise the Government on establishing sound employer–worker relationships and enhancing productivity in the RMG sector.

Concluding remarks

Bangladesh is a densely populated (1,015 inhabitants per square kilometre) agro-based country with around half of the working population living in rural areas. Although remarkable progress has been achieved in the country’s most labour-intensive RMG industry, the country’s overall industrial development still remains in its infancy. Even the most promising RMG sector is still run by the first-generation entrepreneurs. During the last two decades, the country has been experiencing an annual economic growth of around 6 per cent. Despite this notable progress, poverty still remains the single most socio-economic policy challenge for the country. In terms of the labour market, the greatest challenge today is to create jobs for 2–2.2 million who are entering the labour market each year. To ensure full, productive and decent employment for them, 8 per cent annual economic growth is crucial. The employers and workers in Bangladesh are not always aware of their rights and responsibilities. Greater engagement of tripartite constituents and continuous engagement of the ILO and development partners in planning, designing, and implementation of promotional activities is essential in building a culture of harmonious industrial relations in the country.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative recalled before the Committee, the commitment of the Government to the protection of human and labour rights as enshrined in the Constitution of Bangladesh and reaffirmed that the Government had taken full note of the issues raised in the 2016 special paragraph and had initiated a number of measures to bring Bangladesh in to full compliance.

General efforts undertaken by the Government after the Rana Plaza incident were also recalled, in particular the initiation of rescue and rehabilitation efforts, drastic actions to put in place immediate measures and institutional mechanisms to strengthen safety rules, the revision of labour laws, including the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 (BLA), and of the national labour policy in order to address imminent labour concerns and improve labour rights, as well as the strengthening of the monitoring mechanisms. Utmost priority was given to improving labour rights and working conditions in the country, while acknowledging that, as a least developed country, Bangladesh was striving to deal with numerous challenges related to the elimination of poverty, hunger and malnutrition and ensuring decent life, adequate nutrition, basic health care and universal free education up to secondary level. Many of the country’s challenges were caused by outdated laws regarding maintenance of law, order and peace, but even under such conditions Bangladesh had been able to balance between development, protection of rights and maintenance of law and order. Per capita income had increased from US$583 in 2006 to US$1,620 in 2017 and take home pay for workers had also increased, contributing to a congenial working environment and income stability of workers. Such development was a reflection of the firm commitment to labour rights, in particular freedom of association and collective bargaining. The Government’s commitment had also found expression in its efforts to render trade union registration and the wage payment system transparent, while promoting collective bargaining. While it was recognized that more was to be done in terms of addressing capacity, structural and systematic conditions, as well as civil and political challenges, the Government had been engaging with all the relevant stakeholders to ensure the effective application of labour legislation and to achieve the shared views of the social partners. A number of other developments were mentioned, including access to justice for any aggrieved party through an inbuilt system for addressing grievances, such as the Labour Tribunal, the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the High Court Division of the Constitutional Court; implementation of the ILO’s Better Work Programme, as well as a National Plan of Action to promote freedom of association and collective bargaining in the ready-made garment (RMG) sector; establishment of an Occupational Safety and Health Policy; signature of a tripartite Statement of Commitment on fire safety at workplaces; development of an integrated inspection guideline for the RMG sector and organization of fire safety training for factory managers.

Turning to the conclusions of the Committee of Experts, the speaker provided the following information, in addition to that already supplied in Document D.8:

– The proposed Export-Processing Zones (EPZ) Labour Act, 2016, was to be reviewed through a multi-stakeholder approach and an advanced draft should be shared with the Committee of Experts by August 2017, after which formalities would be initiated to place the draft before the Parliament.

– The newly created Tripartite Technical Committee (TTC) for amendment of the BLA had already held its first meeting, demonstrating that work was being done to conform the legislation to ILO standards, and it had been asked to complete work on preparing an initial draft by August 2017. Both the Tripartite Consultative Council (TCC) and the newly created RMG Tripartite Consultative Committee (RMG TCC) would be supported by the ILO, serving as their secretariat.

– The recently adopted and published standard operating procedures (SOPs) for registration had already been implemented, had reduced the time frame for resolving issues concerning registration and should also reduce the registration rejection rate.

– A transparent remediation strategy with a timeline was to be developed and shared with the Committee by the end of August 2017.

– Access to further funding should be facilitated and recruitment of 169 labour inspectors should be finalized by June 2018.

In conclusion, the speaker reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to a better and safer workplace for workers to uphold their rights to collective bargaining, freedom of association and their right to strike for realizing their legal demands. Legislative amendments were ongoing and the Government was also engaging with factory owners, businesses and buying houses to ensure that they followed good business practices and recognized that responsible behaviour by all stakeholders was a necessary factor for progress in that area. Moreover, commitment was also expressed to achieving full and productive employment and decent work for all by 2030, in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The speaker stated that Bangladesh sought continued cooperation, support and understanding from their international friends and partners in order to achieve that goal.

The Worker members recalled that, for the last five years, Bangladesh had appeared before the Committee to explain why it had failed to make any progress in relation to ILO Conventions, in particular Convention No. 87. Each year, the Government had made claims and excuses and concluded with promises to do better the following year. These promises had not only proved to be empty but the situation had worsened each passing year. The Government had still made no progress to implement the repeated observations of the Committee of Experts, the recommendations of the 2016 high-level tripartite mission to Bangladesh and the conclusions of the Conference Committee. The special paragraph that the Committee had applied last year to signal the serious concern with the Government’s failures had had no effect whatsoever. Despite all of the technical assistance and the millions of euros in donor resources, garment workers, and workers in other industries, were worse off today than they had been a year ago. The Worker members stressed that, in the final days of 2016, the Government had unleashed a wave of repression against garment workers following a peaceful demonstration for a higher minimum wage that had started on 11 December in Ashulia. Police rounded up union leaders and union organizers, many of whom had not even been in Ashulia at the time of the demonstrations. They were detained for several weeks and some were beaten in custody or forced to pay bribes to avoid physical abuse. Most workers were charged under the provisions of an emergency powers law that had been repealed in the 1990s. Garment manufacturers also suspended or dismissed over 1,600 workers in a massive and coordinated closure of roughly 60 garment factories. Police raided the offices of several unions and worker rights NGOs, disrupting their activities and locking their doors. Police even disrupted a health and safety training event funded by the ILO on 20 January 2017. Following all those events, the Government had refused to act until major international garment brands announced that they would boycott the Dhaka Apparel Summit on 25 February 2017 over their concerns related to the repression in Ashulia. As a result, government and industry representatives reached an agreement with the IndustriALL Bangladesh Council on 23 February 2017. However, the Government had failed to implement that agreement too. Very recently, on 27 May 2017, local thugs had threatened and physically attacked workers and leaders in Chittagong. Union leaders had been warned that if they continued to organize unions they would be killed. The local police watched as union leaders were assaulted. A poster with the union’s president in a noose had been circulated in Chittagong.

The Worker members further pointed to the matters raised in the comments of the Committee of Experts. The revised BLA continued to fall short of international standards with regard to freedom of association and collective bargaining despite minor amendments in 2013. In late 2015, the Government had issued the Bangladesh Labour Rules (BLR). Despite the lengthy period taken to draft the Rules, their quality was extremely poor as many provisions violated the Convention. The Government had so far done nothing to amend either the BLA or the BLR to bring them into compliance with Conventions Nos 87 and 98.

With respect to EPZs, trade unions had been banned and only workers’ welfare associations (WWAs) could be established. The WWAs did not have the same rights and privileges as trade unions. While the authorities in the EPZs claimed that collective bargaining was permitted, it did not exist in practice. The last draft legislation on EPZs, in 2016, had once again prohibited unions and allowed only for WWAs. There still existed no text, even in draft form, that would allow workers in EPZs to exercise their rights consistent with the Convention. Concerning anti-union discrimination, the leaders of many of the unions that had been registered after 2013 suffered retaliation, sometimes violent, by management or their agents. Some union leaders had been brutally beaten and hospitalized as a result. The Government had done absolutely nothing to address anti-union discrimination.

With regard to the refusal to register unions, since the Rana Plaza incident, and at considerable risk for themselves, young garment workers mostly women had attempted to form and register unions for a collective voice. Their numbers would be much greater were it not for the Government’s arbitrary rejection of registration applications. The reasons for rejection were inconsistent from one application to the next, did not comply with the law and the implementing rules, and had no factual basis. During the process, workers and their unions were unable to challenge reasons presented for rejecting a union. The only option available for workers was to file a case in one of the country’s few and overburdened labour courts, where cases languished for several years. The arbitrary nature of the process was most apparent in Chittagong, where, in 2016, only around 43 per cent of applications for registration had been approved. Despite some unions submitting applications several times with well over the 30 per cent minimum support of the workforce as required by law, the applications were rejected on multiple occasions. The Joint Director of Labour (JDL) often claimed that many workers’ signatures on union forms did not match employer documentation. Yet there was no such provision in the law or rules for rejecting an application for such reason, and the JDL did not ask the worker in question whether he or she had in fact signed the form. Recently, the Government had promised that it would draft SOPs to assist the registration process but such procedures had not yet been completed or adopted and the Worker members had serious doubts as to whether a set of procedures would result in any meaningful change. The Worker members did not doubt that the Government would make more promises to the Committee, but trust had been broken. It was time that this changed for good.

The Employer members thanked the Government for the information it had provided and, in particular, for its reinforced commitment to implement the Convention, its stated intention to pursue social dialogue with workers’ and employers’ organizations and its reiterated commitment to cooperate with the ILO. The case at hand had been the subject of 22 observations of the Committee of Experts and had been examined by the Conference Committee on seven occasions, most recently in 2013, 2015 and 2016. Given its lengthy and complex nature and the many facets of the Committee of Experts’ observations, it was necessary to look closely at the measures adopted by the Government. Although more work had to be done and some concerns still remained, especially in respect of allegations of intimidation and violence, progress had been made. It was also important not to lose sight of the role played by the RMG sector in the socio-economic development of the country and its contribution to the empowerment of millions of women.

It was recalled that in 2016, the Conference Committee had expressed deep concern at the lack of progress on a number of previously highlighted issues, that the high-level tripartite mission had considered the registration process as highly bureaucratic and had urged the Government to develop SOPs to ensure that the registration process would not become an obstacle to the registration of trade unions. Since then, the Government, in cooperation with the ILO and through consultation with the social partners, had agreed on the adoption of SOPs concerning registration, which was, according to the Employer members, a positive measure. It was stated that while the registration process must be transparent, it did not have to be a simple formality and the Government could determine minimum registration requirements in light of the national context and to ensure a climate of social and industrial peace. Given that the Committee of Experts had raised issues of delays in registration, lack of transparency and lengthy judicial proceedings when challenging registration, the Government was asked to provide further information to the Committee of Experts on the terms of reference of the SOPs, as well as information demonstrating the transparent nature of the registration process.

With regard to the amendment of the BLA, the speaker noted the information provided by the Government, in particular that the revision was an ongoing process, as well as the Government’s commitment to work with the social partners and the ILO to address the pending matters. The Employer members noted with interest the recently established TTC and its possible role in contributing to the revision of the BLA. The Government was also encouraged to provide further information to the Committee of Experts in relation to the BLR, so that they could more fully understand how the BLR operated and whether there were any issues to be further discussed.

With regard to the issue of EPZs, the Employer members had previously noted that a situation where a separate legislative framework existed for enterprises located in EPZs was problematic. In Bangladesh, the BLA applied to employers operating outside the EPZs and the EPZ Workers Welfare Association and Industrial Relations Act, 2010 (EWWAIRA), applied to those employers operating inside the EPZs. The EWWAIRA did not allow workers or employers to form organizations of their own choosing and although a draft EPZ Labour Act had been submitted to Parliament, only limited consultations appeared to have been done with national workers’ and employers’ organizations. Furthermore, the high-level tripartite mission had expressed concerns over the fact that the draft legislation restricted freedom of association of workers’ organizations and investor employers in EPZs. Therefore, the Employer members noted positively that the draft EPZ Labour Act had been recalled by the Government and would be subject to a thorough review with the stated intention of ensuring its compliance with Convention No. 87. In particular, the Government was considering deleting Chapters 9, 10 and 15 and replacing them with Chapter 13 of the BLA, thus providing the right to freedom of association to all workers. In such a revision, freedom of association for investor employers should not be overlooked. Overall, the Government’s efforts to amend the legislation governing EPZs was welcomed and considered as a significant step towards the implementation of the Government’s obligations to ensure that workers and employers could form and join organizations of their own choosing. It was important to encourage the Government to provide the new draft EPZ Labour Act to the Committee of Experts for further examination and to complete the process without delay, as the Committee would note any concerns if no further action was taken in that regard.

The Worker member of Bangladesh was concerned about the lack of protection of freedom of association. He had hoped that after the Rana Plaza incident, the Government and employers would have learned a painful lesson and would finally act responsibly, respecting the rights of workers to form and join trade unions and to bargain collectively. Under the Bangladesh Sustainability Compact, the Government had promised the ILO, the European (EU), the United States and Bangladeshi workers that it would respect freedom of association, further revise the BLA, ensure that workers in EPZs could exercise their fundamental rights and ensure that workers could freely register trade unions and undertake union activities without retaliation. However, the Government had failed to keep those promises and although it was making them again, workers could no longer place their trust only in words.

The RMG industry in Bangladesh exported billions of dollars of goods to global brands in the EU and the United States market each year. At the same time, the wages of garment workers remained very low; they were paid a base wage plus allowances of only $67 dollars a month. The speaker stressed that it was not possible to live on such a low wage. One of the reasons why wages had remained so low was that for many years the Government had maintained a “no-union” policy in the RMG sector.

Regarding union registration, the speaker recalled that it took 60 days to register a union and that the union must have membership of a minimum of 30 per cent of the workers of the factory. This threshold was too high, since factories had between 10,000 and 15,000 workers. With regard to the Ashulia movement, he expressed hope that all dismissed workers would be reinstated. Regarding the EPZs, it was recalled that WWAs were different from trade unions, as they did not have the same rights and privileges. Therefore, the Government should modify its legislation, taking into account workers’ views in order to comply with the Convention.

In conclusion, the speaker expressed hope that the industry would prosper and create jobs for the millions of workers in the country. However, the jobs must be good and based on the principles of decent work. It was underlined that workers should not have to produce garments at wages so low that they could not live in dignity. The Government had a clear choice: it could respect its workers and its international obligations and implement the repeated conclusions of the Committee without any further delay, or it could continue with business as usual at the expense of its own citizens. If the latter was chosen, the Government would be the only one to blame if one day global brands, tired of the constant headlines about the abuse of workers in their supply chains, decided to source their garments elsewhere.

The Employer member of Bangladesh recalled the shock and shame of the 2013 Rana Plaza incident and the global attention that it had attracted. Three initiatives – the Accord, the Alliance and the National Initiative – were established in response, to overhaul the industry and establish safe factories and improved working conditions. In 2013, the Government had signed a Sustainability Compact with the EU, the United States and the ILO and some 3,780 garment exporting factories had been inspected through one of the three established initiatives, resulting in the closure of less than 3 per cent of factories that were found to be unsafe. All other factories that were inspected had been required to undertake measures to improve safety conditions. Nonetheless, hundreds of small and medium-sized factories had also closed due to their financial inability to carry out remedial measures, which caused thousands of job losses. Never had such scale of inspections for fire, building and electrical safety been witnessed in such a brief period of time. Noting the significant investments employers had continued to make to improve factory safety, he urged international buyers to re-evaluate their pricing policies for the survival of struggling factories. With the support of the ILO and development partners, the Government had made efforts to strengthen the capacity of its regulatory institutions and create an optimal culture for adherence to occupational safety and health regulations. Recognizing that close to 1,200 factories had shut down due to compliance costs, and thousands of workers had lost their jobs, some positive developments were noted, including improvements in manufacturing facilities, the issuance of several Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certifications and the growth of green factories. Bangladesh was a global leader in the establishment of green garment factories, with 67 such factories having been certified by the US Green Building Council, and some 220 more prepared for certification.

Multiple weaknesses and challenges in the broader regulatory and institutional framework had emerged in the process of establishing factory safety, such as capacity for inspections, unfair labour practices, respect for trade union rights and rights at work, and weak social dialogue, which had demanded a large number of initiatives to be taken by all stakeholders.

The special paragraph and its reference to four specific issues that the Government needed to address immediately was another major challenge. The comments of the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee had been taken very seriously by the Government. Commitment to bringing about changes in several areas relating to the regulation of labour standards and their enforcement had been made. Various initiatives had been taken involving employers, including the adoption of SOPs for the registration of trade unions. The Government was committed to working with the ILO to ensure that all stakeholders were aware of the SOPs and that staff implemented them effectively. Additional SOPs for handling cases of anti-union discrimination and unfair labour practices were also being developed in collaboration with the ILO. Noting the challenges of implementing such procedures, he welcomed the Department of Labour’s attention to the issue and efforts to strengthen its resources to perform tasks agreed upon by the tripartite partners. He recalled the illegal work stoppages and vandalism in Ashulia in December 2016, and the 11 cases filed by factory management and law enforcement authorities. Five of those cases had been disposed of by police following investigation, with no witness to prove the prosecution, and the remaining cases would be disposed of through an expeditious investigation, following due legal processes. The Ashulia Tripartite Agreement was being implemented in compliance with the law.

Full support should be given to social dialogue and tripartism. The speaker noted that employers in the RMG sector had been holding regular monthly meetings with leaders of trade union federations under the IndustriALL Bangladesh Council since March 2017. The TCC for the RMG sector had also been formed in March 2017, comprised by worker, employer and government representatives, and had already met. He expressed confidence in the role of this body in strengthening social dialogue and industrial relations and helping chart the future course of the garment sector.

Amendments to the Labour Act and the EPZ Labour Act were being addressed by the Government and he welcomed the review of the Labour Act by a subcommittee of the TCC, which would propose necessary amendments by the end of August 2017, to bring it in line with the Convention. The draft EPZ Labour Act had also been withdrawn following submission to Parliament and would go through a thorough review to address the concerns and recommendations of the ILO and the Sustainability Compact partners before being shared in November 2017.

The RMG sector had an extraordinary role in the development of Bangladesh, accounting for 80 per cent of export earnings and the majority of jobs in the formal economy. Close to 4 million workers, of which 80 per cent were women, depended on the sector for their livelihoods and all partners had a moral obligation to ensure its growth and consolidation. The country was undergoing gigantic reforms on multiple fronts, each involving a major and elaborate process that had great potential. The comprehensive reforms would provide an exemplary model for job creation, workplace safety, protection of labour rights, social dialogue and international cooperation, and required a positive approach from the Government, with support from tripartite constituents and other stakeholders, national and international. The speaker urged the Government to remain continuously engaged with the social partners and to facilitate their capacity building. The speaker reiterated the importance of the rights and safety of all workers in Bangladesh. It was essential to consider the livelihoods of the millions of workers in the industry and the need for care, sensitivity and compassion in the consideration of this case.

The Government member of Malta, speaking on behalf of the EU and its Member States, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Norway, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Serbia, indicated that they attached great importance to the respect of human rights, including freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, and recognized the important role of the ILO in developing, promoting and supervising international labour standards.

The EU, together with the ILO, the United States and Canada, had established intensive cooperation with Bangladesh in the framework of the Bangladesh Sustainability Compact and Bangladesh benefited from preferential access to the EU market through the “Everything but Arms” arrangement, which largely depended on respect for human and labour rights. Additionally, the 2001 cooperation agreement between Bangladesh and the EU specifically mentioned the need to respect ILO principles, including freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively.

While recognizing progress achieved on a number of labour issues, notably on factory safety, setting up new labour-related structures – such as the new RMG TCC – and SOPs, as well as the recall of the draft EPZ Labour Act for review, the speaker expressed serious concerns regarding respect for labour rights, particularly freedom of association and the right to collectively bargain. Despite the 2016 conclusions of the Committee and the seriousness of the case, deep regret was expressed that the steps taken by the Government had not responded adequately to the concerns raised. The Government was strongly encouraged to come forward with more substantial and time-bound steps.

Concerning the specific incidents of violence and use of force against trade unionists contained in the report of the Committee of Experts, the Government was called upon to ensure that all workers could freely exercise their fundamental labour rights, and ensure effective, expedient, and transparent investigations, as well as prosecution of violence and harassment against trade unions and workers’ representatives. The Government was further encouraged to extend the existing helpline to other regions, to develop and implement SOPs to address anti-union discrimination and to provide further information on follow-up regarding the cases reported.

Bangladeshi labour laws and procedures continued to pose significant barriers to founding and operating a union. For instance, registration of trade unions continued to be hindered by various obstacles. Given the concerns expressed in this regard by the Committee of Experts, the Government was called upon to ensure that trade union registration was carried out in a transparent and expeditious manner through the effective implementation of SOPs and to ensure full and transparent reporting on registration procedures. Other provisions of the BLA restricted the right to form a trade union, including the 30 per cent minimum membership requirement, and the Government was, therefore, urged to amend, as a matter of urgency, the BLA and the BLR so as to bring their provisions fully in line with the Convention. It was also asked to provide clarification regarding the alleged new membership requirement of 400 workers to form a union in the agricultural sector. The speaker welcomed the Government’s commitment to do so, as well as the recent formation of the TTC.

Finally, the legislation regulating the right to organize in EPZs or other specific export-oriented zones remained a significant issue of concern. The Government was urged to adopt the new law governing the EPZs allowing for full freedom of association in consultation with the social partners.

In conclusion, while welcoming the Government’s willingness to address the concerns raised, such commitment needed to translate into firm, concrete and time-bound actions, both in law and practice. Furthermore, progress on the matter was urgently expected and would be closely monitored by the EU, which remained committed to cooperation with Bangladesh.

The Government member of Algeria said that the Government of Bangladesh had made great efforts to improve the situation concerning social dialogue and the free exercise of the right to organize. He noted with interest: the amendments made in 2013 to the BLA, following extensive consultations, the diligence demonstrated in the handling of complaints concerning practices that might undermine trade union activities; the efforts made to publish information on issues relating to freedom of association on the Internet; the capacity building of staff to address cases of infringement of freedom of association; the capacity building of workers and employers on social dialogue; the provision of online information and assistance to workers to facilitate the filing of complaints; and the easing of trade union registration procedures. He welcomed the progress made by the Government and encouraged it to continue its efforts, in consultation with its economic and social partners, to ensure the effective application of the relevant ILO standards.

An observer representing IndustriALL Global Union regretted the lack of progress made in compliance with the Convention given the continued acts of trade union repression. In December 2016, over 1,600 garment workers had been dismissed following worker demonstrations over low wages in Ashulia. At least 34 workers and trade unionists had been arrested and detained, trade union offices had been ransacked and vandalized, and union organizers had gone into hiding, fearing retribution. The creation of a tripartite forum for sectoral dialogue in the RMG industry was one positive outcome, which the Government should build on by providing a clear legal basis for bargaining at the sectoral level.

Applications for trade union registration were rejected on unjustified grounds, and there were strong indications of political interference in the registration process. Denial of union registration at two factories in Chittagong was cited as an example of continued violations since February 2016 and IndustriALL’s shipbreaking affiliates faced similar problems in Chittagong. Union registration decisions should be based on objective criteria and politicization of the process was a violation of the right to freedom of association. The Conference Committee had previously recognized the failure of the Government to address incidents of violence against trade unionists and this climate of impunity continued. Workers in Chittagong had been threatened, beaten and warned that, if they continued to organize unions, they would be killed. This general hostility towards trade unions persisted in Bangladesh despite international pressure which had led to the release of the workers and trade unionists detained following the labour unrest in Ashulia in 2016. Noting that none of the charges against the workers had been dropped, she stressed that the pending charges contributed to a lack of confidence in organizing and to the suppression of trade unions activities. The Prime Minister’s recent public comments increased hostility towards trade unionists and raised further doubts concerning the Government’s commitment to the Convention. The speaker called for the inclusion of this case in a special paragraph.

The Government member of Canada commended the Government’s actions and commitment towards improving workers’ rights and safety, specifically in the RMG sector. In the follow-up to the Bangladesh Sustainability Compact, the Government had reported on progress in establishing SOPs for trade union registration as well as an online system to improve transparency in the handling of anti-union discrimination cases and the rejection of trade union applications. Continued efforts to enforce and sustain the use of that system were encouraged. Recalling issues of harassment and violence against trade unions, and interference with union activities, she urged that all acts, such as those during the recent Ashulia crisis, be investigated. A report on lessons learned from Ashulia and on measures taken to avoid repetition of these incidents was requested.

With the removal of the draft EPZ Labour Act from Parliament, prompt action was necessary to ensure that a revised draft law that reflected international standards was submitted to the Committee of Experts by autumn 2017. A revised draft of the BLA, addressing freedom of association and collective bargaining issues, should also be submitted to the Committee of Experts for review. The newly formed TCC and its role in providing recommendations on changes to the BLA was noted in this regard, and she called for the development of terms of reference and a comprehensive workplan for the Council, and regular updates to stakeholders. The Government had taken the issues seriously and continued to make good progress in the RMG sector, with positive impacts on other industries; however, there was still work to be done. The development of a strategy with concrete and time-bound actions to address the full range of concerns raised by the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee was recommended.

The Worker member of Germany, speaking also on behalf of the Worker members of France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden, referred to violations of human rights, including freedom of association, in Bangladesh. A variety of instruments and initiatives had been adopted to support the Government’s efforts to build a society in which human rights and trade union rights were fully respected. For example, the Alliance for Sustainable Textiles in Germany was a unique national initiative, in which all stakeholders were committed to improving social conditions along the entire supply chain in the textile sector. The alliance was launched by the Government of Germany and was supported by employers’ and workers’ organizations, the federal Government and NGOs. Reference was also made to the EU’s “Everything but Arms” arrangement, which granted Bangladesh duty-free and quota-free access to sell its goods in EU markets. Bangladesh was taking full advantage of this special treatment under the Generalized Scheme of Preferences (GSP). Compliance with fundamental rights and other labour rights was a prerequisite for continuing to participate in the GSP. Bangladesh benefited from this special treatment, but did nothing to maintain it or to approach the next stage, namely the GSP+ arrangement. The speaker referred to the comments of the Committee of Experts that had not been implemented by the Government, and indicated that it was necessary for the EU to initiate an investigation on the basis of the GSP requirements and to consider the timely removal of existing benefits if the situation in Bangladesh did not improve. That demand had been addressed by the international trade union federations in a joint letter of May 2017. It must be made clear to the Government of Bangladesh that fundamental human rights and trade union rights were of the utmost importance to the EU.

The Employer member of India appreciated the progress made by the Government of Bangladesh. The threshold limit to form a union in the agriculture sector had been framed by the Government according to the realities of the sector. The situation of violence that had taken place in Ashulia was subject to investigation and five out of 11 cases had been disposed of. Labour laws for the EPZs were being reviewed. The legislation recognized the right to register unions, as demonstrated by the fact that 960 unions had been registered in less than a year. The rejection of union registrations based on technical or administrative grounds did not mean that union registration was not allowed. Cohesive and strong unions were recommended in order to provide for successful collective bargaining, since a multiplicity of unions frustrated the cause of collective bargaining. Therefore, fixing the threshold for registration of trade unions at 30 per cent was reasonable. In conclusion, the speaker called on the Committee of Experts to consider those facts and to allow the Government additional time to report on progress.

The Government member of China took note of the information provided by the Government of Bangladesh and noted the progress made in respect of protecting labour rights, including the revision of the labour law, drafting of the EPZ Labour Act, the increased rate of trade union registrations, social dialogue and the establishment of the TTC. Compliance with ratified ILO Conventions was an obligation of every member State and development cooperation could assist with the implementation of the Convention. Efforts made by the Government should be recognized. The speaker hoped that the ILO would continue to provide technical assistance to support the Government in complying with its obligations.

The Employer member of New Zealand noted that the case illustrated the growing concern over the years regarding the discussion of issues that should not come before the Committee. He questioned whether the Rana Plaza incident should be raised in discussions relating to the application of principles of freedom of association. Interventions should be focused on issues pertaining to the Convention. Bangladesh had demonstrated that it could move forward. The collapse of Rana Plaza had rocked the world, and what had been achieved since then was a massive review of the country’s system, its companies, and the emergence of green factories. While recognizing that challenges associated with the registration of trade unions and discrimination against unions persisted, it was incorrect to claim nothing had been done. The gap between the provisions of the new acts and the practices and situation in the country needed to be addressed and the Government had demonstrated a willingness to pursue social dialogue through its withdrawal of the draft bill on EPZs and its subsequent actions. The situation was certainly not perfect, but it never was. This should be recognized in consideration of the issues expressed by workers and others.

The Worker member of Argentina expressed concern at the situation of workers and trade union leaders in the textile industry in Bangladesh. There were constant violations of fundamental labour standards, and wages remained the lowest in the world. The minimum wage for a worker in the textile industry amounted to around 5,300 takas, or just under US$67 a month. This figure was far below both the poverty line established by the World Bank and minimum wages in neighbouring countries that produced textiles, such as Cambodia. At the end of 2016, prompted by a peaceful protest in the city of Ashulia in support of better wages, a wave of repression had been unleashed against workers and trade union leaders in the textile industry. The police had arrested around 34 people, many of them trade union leaders, who had not even taken part in the protest. Some union leaders had been accused of offences under legal provisions that were no longer in force, while others had been sued by textile producers for alleged damage to property that had yet to be proven. Moreover, some 1,500 workers had been dismissed or forced to give up their jobs. Raids had also been carried out on the offices of trade unions and NGOs that protected workers’ rights. It was surprising that such a situation had arisen while the country’s trade preferences with the European Union continued to be based on compliance with the Sustainability Compact, an agreement negotiated between the European Union and Bangladesh on 8 July 2013 with ILO support. The agreement had been motivated by the Rana Plaza disaster, which had cost the lives of 1,200 workers in the textile industry. In the year following the collapse of Rana Plaza, while the international community’s attention was on this event, the Government had allowed workers to join trade unions, but the commotion in the international community had barely died down before measures were again being taken against workers. Laws and regulations were therefore needed that created enterprise responsibility for violations of labour standards and human rights.

The Government member of the United States noted that the Committee was discussing the application by Bangladesh of the Convention for the fourth time in five years and that the issues remained largely unchanged: the Government must investigate violence against trade unionists in a transparent and credible manner. It had yet to establish a transparent trade union registration process as indicated by high rates of trade union registration rejections. While a tripartite review of the BLA was promised in the near future, no steps had been taken to amend the Act or its implementing rules in line with ILO supervisory recommendations; and workers in EPZs still did not enjoy the right to freedom of association – an issue that the Committee of Experts had been highlighting over the past 25 years.

The May 2017 review of the Bangladesh Sustainability Compact had yielded no demonstrable achievements on the part of the Government over the past year with regard to freedom of association and there was little evidence that efforts were being made to address the observations of the Committee of Experts, the conclusions of the Conference Committee, or the recommendations of the high-level tripartite mission that had visited Bangladesh in 2016. The Government’s response to the December 2016 labour protests in Ashulia also indicated that freedom of association was not protected in Bangladesh.

The speaker fully endorsed the conclusions of the Conference Committee, which had been made repeatedly over the past few years and urged the Government to act, without further delay, to ensure that the trade union registration process was transparent and based on clear and objective criteria, that actions of anti-union discrimination were fully investigated and prosecuted, that the law governing EPZs allowed for full freedom of association and that the BLA and its implementing rules were revised in line with the observations of the Committee of Experts. He recommended bringing the conclusions of the discussion before the plenary of the Conference.

The Worker member of the United States, speaking also on behalf of the Worker members of Canada, described the day-to-day harassment and abuse that workers, their organizations and their allies faced when they organized to raise the wages of the poorest, form unions and plan collective action. This difficult work took place in the months before and after the dramatic events such as the recent strikes. At every turn, the employers and the Government acted to block workers. These tactics had been widespread since the strikes in late 2016, but they had long been used and continued unabated as the Committee met. Workers had described blacklisting: those who took action in Ashulia and Chittagong could no longer get work. Surveillance of all workers had increased. Police also “visited” workers at home and harassed the entire family. Moreover, many labour organizers had been charged with crimes that had taken place when the person charged was out of the region or the country. The charges against strikers in Ashulia and Chittagong, and countless others, continued, as part of the permanent pressure on workers. Independent unions and their allies were repeatedly harassed while training workers on safe workplaces. On 20 January 2017, the industrial police forced workers at a safety training to disperse after photographing them, recording the names of participants and of their entire family, warning workers to avoid the Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers Union Federation (BIGUF), and threatening to drown one of the leaders of the BIGUF. The speaker pointed out that, on that occasion, workers were participating in an ILO-funded safety training. He also referred to an incident that had occurred only ten days ago, where an employer in Chittagong had filed charges against a BIGUF leader, Mr Chandon, and factory-level leaders for alleged unlawful assembly. Mr Chandon had not even been in the country on the date of the alleged offense. The employer in question had a long history of harassing workers who organized. The speaker called on the Committee to send the strongest message possible – a special paragraph – to demand that Bangladesh finally stop attacking and act to defend its workers.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran welcomed the measures taken by the Government to improve labour rights in Bangladesh. A tripartite technical committee had been established by the TCC to review the BLA. Moreover, trade union registration had increased to 63 per cent in 2016, compared to 32 per cent in 2015. SOPs had been developed with the assistance of the ILO so as to expedite trade union registration. With respect to anti-union discrimination or unfair labour practices, intensive training programmes for labour officials were being conducted. The Government was encouraged to continue to take measures to comply with the Convention. The speaker called on the Office to provide technical assistance to support the Government in this regard.

The Government member of Sri Lanka was of the view that the Government of Bangladesh was committed to giving full effect to the provisions of the Convention. The BLA was being reviewed and legislation in relation to EPZs was being drafted. Moreover, SOPs had been developed to expedite trade union registration. The TCC had been established to deal with labour issues at the national level and to promote social dialogue. The speaker expressed the hope that the Government would effectively address all issues that had been raised.

The Worker member of Japan, speaking on behalf of the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO), stated that the case of Bangladesh had been examined on numerous occasions in the last few years, which demonstrated the seriousness of the issue. In Bangladesh, it was difficult to organize due to lack of freedom of association and social dialogue, legal restrictions and strong resistance from employers against the establishment of unions. In 2016, only around 60 per cent of trade union applications submitted for registration were approved. In addition, workers encountered many issues when attempting to form a union, including dismissal, threats and violence, as was the case in a large factory in May 2017 and in the biggest oil company. While taking note of some improvements made to the BLA in 2013, the speaker expressed concern about the large number of difficulties linked to forming a union and requested the Government to further amend the legislation, including the 30 per cent minimum membership requirement, and to fully implement it. In April 2017, the Government had declared services by its national flag carrier to be essential, thereby restricting the aviation unions’ ability to take collective action. The Government should address this issue as a matter of urgency. In light of the seriousness of the situation, the speaker considered that the matter should be addressed in a special paragraph.

The Government member of Switzerland indicated that her Government supported the statement by the European Union. She regretted that there had been no response to the requests made by the Committee the previous year. The objectives established by the Committee remained valid, namely: to bring law and practice into conformity with the Convention, and to ensure the respect for the social partners and freedom of association, and for civil liberties in general. The Government of Bangladesh should put an end to all acts of violence and harassment, including those carried out against trade unionists. In support of the ILO Better Work Programme, the Government of Switzerland insisted on the full respect of workers’ rights. The procedures to register trade unions must be made more efficient and faster, so that delays could be resolved and organizations recognized. Moreover, the legislation applicable to EPZs must respect freedom of association. Progress must be made in this regard. Lastly, she emphasized that the Committee’s previous and future conclusions must be respected and applied by the Government.

The Worker member of Italy highlighted the climate of anti-union violence, intimidation and impunity which was pervasive throughout Bangladesh. She recalled that workers and approximately 70 trade union leaders in a factory in Chittagong had recently been attacked in front of the factory gate within sight of factory management and the police. Workers and trade union leaders had also been blackmailed: if they had continued to organize unions, they would have been killed. The factory had filed false charges against trade union leaders, most of whom were in jail.

The attackers, at the request of management, continued to intimidate trade union leaders and their families by visiting their homes, making phone calls and threatening to kill them. These recent attacks followed the workers’ fourth attempt to apply for union registration. Since 2016, the Government had rejected the workers’ application on arbitrary and baseless grounds. While the recent escalation of attacks against those workers had been among the most severe, it was not the first. Since 2014, various episodes of violence against trade union leaders had taken place and trade unions of the factory group had been forcefully removed one after the other. The assaults had been carried out at the behest of the company.

Earlier instances of labour rights violations had only been stopped through the far-reaching and coordinated intervention of global brands, who had threatened to sever ties with that group of factories. The impunity in Bangladesh showed how both the Government and the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) were condoning these clear violations of national labour legislation and core international labour standards. The EU had acknowledged the Government’s failure to protect freedom of association many times and had urged it to take concrete steps to ensure that national legislation and practice were in line with international labour standards. There was well-documented and abundant evidence demonstrating the systematic violation of core human and labour rights. The speaker requested for this case to be treated as particularly serious by the Committee and included in a special paragraph.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom indicated that consumers, many of them workers and union members, bought garments from Bangladesh but were deeply troubled by the terrible conditions faced by workers in the textile industry. Consumers wanted to continue to buy those garments, but they also expected the Government of Bangladesh to meet its international obligations, especially the right to freedom of association. British workers were deeply alarmed when, after ten days of strikes beginning on 12 December 2016, thousands of workers were dismissed in Ashulia. Union leaders had been imprisoned under entirely inappropriate wartime legislation and many more had been forced into hiding. Union offices had been forcibly shut down and vandalized by the authorities. In February 2017, more trade unionists had been arrested in Chittagong after police interrupted a training session in union offices. The speaker then referred to the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), a multi-stakeholder body involving unions, corporations and NGOs. Corporate members of the ETI, including many of the UK global brands, had joined unions in calling for the union leaders in Ashulia to be released. Moreover, in protest at the arrests, the ETI and its global corporate members withdrew from the Dhaka Apparel Summit organized by the BGMEA. The speaker called on the Government to take urgent action to bring its law and practice in line with the Convention and to ensure non-discrimination of trade unionists.

The Government member of Kenya welcomed the information provided by the Government of Bangladesh and the steps the country had taken to fulfil its obligations. She welcomed the review of the rules regulating the EPZs, the use of SOPs, which enabled an increase in trade union registration, and the constitution of a TCC for the RMG sector, which promoted harmonious industrial relations. She was convinced that the challenges that persisted would be addressed by the Government and called for continued technical assistance by the ILO to support the necessary changes.

The Employer member of Cambodia commended the Government of Bangladesh for the various initiatives taken to improve working conditions in the RMG sector and supported the view of the Employers of Bangladesh that the livelihood of millions of workers in the industry needed to be taken into account while considering this case. The RMG industry generated more than four fifths of Bangladesh’s export revenue and employed millions of workers, the majority of whom were women. The speaker was confident that Bangladeshi employers would respect the rights of all workers in the country. Good industrial relations between employers and workers were essential. Over the last four years, Bangladesh had made considerable progress to improve workplace safety in the garment sector and it was hoped that the ILO would continue to support the country in the development of this sector.

The Government member of Uruguay thanked the Government for the explanations provided. However, he expressed concern at the case as there were workers whose criminal proceedings were still pending. He emphasized that this situation had its origins in legitimate, not criminal trade union activities, and regretted that there had been a high number of dismissals, acts of anti-union discrimination and attacks on freedom of association. Uruguay was a strong advocate of ILO standards, particularly of the Conventions guaranteeing freedom of association. The acts which had given rise to the workers’ complaint appeared to be in violation of the Convention. He therefore kindly requested the Government to redouble its efforts to ensure the correct and strict application of the Convention and of all provisions that ensured full freedom of association and collective bargaining.

An observer representing the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) acknowledged that the Honourable Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs was leading the Government delegation of Bangladesh, which showed strong commitment by the Government in responding to the issues raised under the special paragraph. The Government’s response should be appreciated as it demonstrated that concrete, specific and time-bound action was being taken. Although Bangladesh was a least developed country, it was trying to emerge out of poverty by 2021 under a strategic economic policy by a Government committed to observing the core ILO Conventions. Bangladesh was a world leader in the RMG sector by virtue of the great skills of its workers and was moving towards a lower middle income status, with close to 4 million people engaged in the RMG sector, of which 80 per cent were women, although other sectors were also important. Bangladesh had been successful in eliminating child labour, including the worst forms of child labour, and had given emphasis to the protection of the rights of workers and to creating a healthy and safe working environment through social dialogue. The speaker expressed gratitude to the ILO and other development partners for their continuous support, which had allowed the Government to implement remediation works at the factory level. The speaker made a strong appeal for Bangladesh to be removed from the special paragraph.

The Government member of India thanked the Government for the information provided and recalled that the matter had been discussed in successive sessions of the Conference. The speaker welcomed the significant legislative amendments that the Government was working on with respect to EPZs and its close cooperation with the ILO. The establishment of a TCC to examine issues raised by the Committee and strengthen tripartite consultation and the realization of a harmonious industrial relations culture were appreciated. Improvements in the labour statistics system demonstrated progress and steps taken to address issues of anti-union discrimination were welcomed, including through capacity building of labour officials, awareness raising and capacity building of workers, development of SOPs, a helpline for workers, and the strengthening of databases despite the significant socio-economic challenges faced by the country. He noted the information provided by the Government on trade union registration and urged the Committee to favourably consider the positive steps taken by the Government.

The Employer member of Turkey recognized the transition of Bangladesh, which had enabled a rapid change in its economic and social structures. These circumstances raised questions regarding the functioning of its industrial relations system, which the country and its social partners had had to address in addition to serious occupational health and safety, trade union representation and labour dispute challenges. International focus on the situation had also led to a wider debate that contributed to the reshaping of its legal and administrative structures. New legal instruments and administrative measures had been adopted for the improvement of working conditions. The draft regulation on EPZs was noted and the legislative process was expected to be completed following a revision process that would increase compliance with international labour standards. The new law should respond to all expectations of tripartite constituents and pave the way for a new era in Bangladeshi industrial relations. The long and demanding transformation of the country, while it faced serious and extensive problems in the implementation of its international obligations, should be positively recognized by the ILO supervisory bodies.

The Government member of Egypt noted the measures adopted by the Government to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Convention, including the development of new policies, the amendment of laws, awareness campaigns and social dialogue. Efforts to fight anti-union discrimination both in law and practice were welcomed. The speaker encouraged continued collaboration between the Government and the ILO.

The Government member of Cuba thanked the Government for the information provided, in particular regarding the revision of the BLA, the activation of the TCC, the updating of labour standards, and the strengthening of the Department of Labour. She noted with appreciation the Government’s willingness to continue strengthening the labour legislation.

The Government representative noted that it was unfortunate that some of the information presented was outdated and distorted and for that reason considered that it was necessary to respond and clarify matters that had been raised. In addition to the written statement reproduced in Document D.8, he provided the following information:

– out of the 11 Ashulia cases, three had been withdrawn and two resolved, a final report having been produced in all five cases; and six other cases were being investigated in accordance with due process and would be resolved without delay, as the Government, while respecting the independence of the judiciary, had requested the investigating authority to expedite the matter;

– SOPs for registration had been published on 22 May 2017 and had been given effect from that date;

– as for the tripartite agreement reached with IndustriALL after the Ashulia incident, a meeting had been held on 23 February 2017, as a result of which all persons imprisoned and under police custody had been released on bail, the salary of workers who had left jobs had been paid as per the labour legislation and all offices for the zones covered by the registered federations at Ashulia had been reopened;

– utmost priority was given to the smooth functioning of the telecommunications sector and this was the reason why it had been identified as an essential service under the Essential Services Act of 1958;

– in addition to the amendment of Chapters 9, 10 and 15 of the draft EPZ Labour Act, mentioned previously, which would be brought in line with the BLA, administration and inspection of factories in EPZs would also fall under the BLA; and

– the Chittagong incident was a dispute between two labour groups and had nothing to do with the Government or the employers.

The speaker expressed firm commitment to the implementation of the measures mentioned within the indicated time frame and requested the withdrawal of the special paragraph from the conclusions of the Committee. He thanked all who had taken part in the discussion, in particular the speakers who understood the challenges, appreciated the steps taken and encouraged the Government to move forward.

The Employer members recognized the importance of the RMG sector in the development of the country and the empowerment of women, and took note of the information provided by the Government. The Employers recalled their disagreement with the Committee of Experts’ views concerning Convention No. 87 and the right to strike. They recalled the Government group’s statement of March 2015 according to which “the scope and conditions of this right are regulated at the national level”. It is in this light that the Employers have addressed the case of Bangladesh. In light of the observations of the Committee of Experts, governance of industrial relations took place at the national level and there should be freedom to balance interests. In consideration of the commitments made by the Government and the measures adopted, the Employer members urged the Government to ensure that the law on EPZs ensured the right to freedom of association for workers and employers, particularly the right to form organizations of their own choosing, and to ensure that applications for union registration were expeditious and transparent. Measures to provide for online registration, which would encourage transparency were welcomed in this regard. Noting the development of SOPs for the registration of trade unions as a positive measure and requesting a copy of these, it was emphasized that continued investigation of acts of anti-union discrimination and the development of procedures for handling such cases were necessary. Information on the operation of the labour rules was requested so that the Committee of Experts could have a fuller understanding of the status of the rules and their impact on the implementation of the BLA. The establishment of the TCC and continued social dialogue was encouraged and further progress was expected without delay. In that regard, the Employer members urged the international community and development partners to continue to support the positive progress noted. On that basis, it was not appropriate to include a special paragraph on Bangladesh in the Conference Report. More needed to be done to encourage progress, and a full report on measures taken should be provided to the Committee of Experts.

The Worker members responded to some of the statements made during the discussion, including on the steps that had been taken by the Government on issues that fell outside the scope of the Convention. Although those steps were welcomed, they could not compensate for the complete lack of progress in relation to the application of the Convention in Bangladesh. The garment industry did in fact employ more than 4 million workers, but that did not exonerate factory owners from their obligations. Decent work and sustainable jobs could only be created where fundamental rights were respected. The Worker members were in agreement with the Employer members concerning the need for objective and transparent requirements for the registration of trade unions. A minimum membership requirement was clearly not in itself incompatible with the Convention. However, the minimum membership requirement must be fixed in a reasonable manner so that it did not hinder the establishment of trade unions. In the case of Bangladesh, the Committee of Experts had repeatedly highlighted that the minimum membership requirements were excessive. It was beyond doubt that the Government had firmly returned to its long-standing, anti-union ways, apparently hoping that the limited progress it made on fire and building safety would obscure its efforts to deny freedom of association to Bangladeshi workers. At every turn, the Government was making it nearly impossible for workers to exercise their fundamental rights. There appeared to be no labour justice for workers. The Government had employed every tactic to delay or deny trade union registration. Some organizations, which had been the most successful in registering new unions following the Rana Plaza incident, currently found their applications routinely denied. If anyone had any doubts, the crackdown in Ashulia made it clear that it was the policy of the Government to repress workers’ rights in order to attract and maintain investment. The arrests and absurd charges under long-ago repealed laws showed just how little commitment the Government had for the rule of law. The fact that police shut down an ILO-funded health and safety programme should be seen as an insult to every Committee member. The Government had failed to comply with nearly all of its international commitments. It had ignored the observations of the Committee of Experts, the conclusions of the Conference Committee, as well as the Bangladesh Sustainability Compact. Even the achievements on fire and building safety had been largely the result of private initiatives, not the Government’s own efforts, therefore calling into question the sustainability of the progress. Every year, the Government informed the Conference Committee that it understood and would do better. The Worker members concluded that the Government would not follow through with its commitments unless significant additional measures were taken. Even the joint conclusions of the Sustainability Compact reflected that no progress had been made, as the parties had urged the Government to undertake once again the promises it had made in 2013 related to freedom of association. The speaker reiterated the conclusions of the Conference Committee of the previous two years, adding a new point in relation to the Ashulia crackdown. In that regard, the Government was urged to fully implement the tripartite agreement of February 2017, including to drop all charges against trade unionists, to end the surveillance of unions and interference in their activities, and to reinstate those workers who had been dismissed in Ashulia following the December 2016 demonstrations. The Worker members also called for the conclusions of the Committee to be placed in a special paragraph. The tripartite constituents were also urged to take all possible measures to persuade the Government of Bangladesh to comply with its legal obligations.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral statements made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted the long-standing nature and the prior discussion of this case in the Committee, most recently in 2015 and 2016. The Committee took note of the drafting of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) regarding union registration in collaboration with the ILO, the establishment of the Tripartite Consultative Council for the ready-made garment (RMG) sector, and the recall from Parliament of, and the preparation of, the draft EPZ Labour Act. At the same time, the Committee noted the insufficient progress in relation to previous discussions of the Committee, and emphasized that more needed to be done to achieve compliance with Convention No. 87 and that this must take place without further delay.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee called upon the Government of Bangladesh to:

- ensure that the Bangladesh Labour Act and the Bangladesh Labour Rules are brought into conformity with the provisions of the Convention regarding freedom of association, paying particular attention to the priorities identified by the social partners;

- ensure that the draft EPZ Labour Act allows for freedom of association for workers’ and employers’ organizations and is brought into conformity with the provisions of the Convention regarding freedom of association, with consultation of the social partners;

- continue to investigate, without delay, all alleged acts of anti-union discrimination, including in the Ashulia area, ensure the reinstatement of those illegally dismissed, and impose fines or criminal sanctions (particularly in cases of violence against trade unionists) according to the law;

- ensure that applications for union registration are acted upon expeditiously and are not denied unless they fail to meet clear and objective criteria set forth in the law.

The Committee urges the Government to continue to effectively engage in ILO technical assistance to address the Committee’s recommendations and to report in detail on the measures taken to implement these recommendations to the next meeting of the Committee of Experts in November 2017.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2016, Publication: 105th ILC session (2016)



A Government representative referred to the Committee’s conclusions on this case in 2015 and indicated that the Government had accepted to receive a High-level Tripartite Mission, which had taken place in April 2016. The report of the Mission had been received by the Government only on 6 June 2016, i.e. two days prior to the discussion in the Committee, which was the reason why no comments could yet be made on the content of that report. In view of the strong commitment of the Government to engage and work with the social partners to improve rights at work, the inclusion of Bangladesh in the list of individual cases was unjustified. The Government was committed to uphold international labour standards through promoting freedom of association of workers in line with the ILO Conventions. The right to organize was enshrined in the Constitution, and, in addition, trade unions and their leaders were protected under various provisions of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 (BLA). Anti-union discrimination and reprisals were contrary to the BLA and subject to stringent legal actions. Under the BLA, any aggrieved worker could submit a complaint on unfair labour practices or anti-union activities to the Department of Labour for remedial action, which would be properly dealt with in an appropriate time frame. Of the 38 complaints received at the Department of Labour, 20 had been settled and 16 criminal cases had been filed, while one case was still being investigated. A helpline for workers had been operational since March 2015, and a total of 490 complaints from the ready-made garment (RMG) sector had been received between December 2015 and May 2016 through this helpline. The BLA had been amended in July 2013, including with a view to promote freedom of association and collective bargaining. After the amendment of the Act, trade union registration had increased significantly, with 899 new trade unions and 21 new trade union federations that had been registered, including 366 new trade unions in the RMG sector. Following the introduction of an online registration system in March 2015, 412 online applications had been received. Moreover, workers in the agricultural sector now had the right to form trade unions. Both the amendments to the BLA and the Rules implementing the BLA had been adopted upon consensus following a wide range of consultations with the tripartite stakeholders. Referring to various technical assistance activities with various actors, including the ILO, he emphasized that awareness raising and capacity building of workers about the right to organize and collective bargaining, especially in the RMG sector, was of high importance to the Government. Those positive initiatives should contribute to a qualitative change in the right to organize and collective bargaining. The export processing zones (EPZs) Workers’ Association and Industrial Relations Act adopted in 2004 was the first legal instrument that granted workers in EPZs the right to organize. Subsequently, the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Association and Industrial Relations Act (EWWAIRA) was adopted in 2010 to ensure freedom of association and collective bargaining of workers in EPZs in the form of workers’ welfare associations (WWAs), which were acting as collective bargaining agents. Out of 409 eligible enterprises in the EPZs, referendums had been held in 304 enterprises. In 225 of these enterprises, WWAs had been established following the referendums held. Between January 2013 and December 2015, 260 charters of demands were submitted by WWAs and settled amicably with agreements being signed. This clearly showed that workers in EPZs were enjoying the right to organize and collective bargaining. Moreover, from January 2015, workers in EPZs were also enjoying the right to strike. The adoption of a comprehensive EPZ Labour Act was at its final stage, and a wide range of consultations had been held with the elected worker representatives of EPZs, investors and other relevant stakeholders. The draft Act had also been shared with the ILO. It was evident that since the existence of EPZs, the labour rights within these zones had been gradually improving, and the EPZ Labour Act was expected to provide an even more effective protection of workers. The effective enforcement of the BLA also played an important role in upholding freedom of association. Therefore, the recruitment of additional staff at the Department of Labour had been initiated. The trade union culture in Bangladesh was complex and awareness building of employers and workers played a vital role in building harmonious industrial relations. Since 2013, more than 14,000 workers and trade union representatives had received training on labour relations. In conclusion, the Government representative expressed appreciation for the constructive engagement of the ILO and the development partners as well as for the technical cooperation provided, and stressed that there was a need for the greater engagement of the tripartite constituents in Bangladesh in the planning, designing and implementation of such technical assistance to promote rights at work.

The Worker members recalled that in more than three years since the Rana Plaza incident, the international community had repeatedly encouraged the Government to protect the right to freedom of association. However, despite all of the technical assistance and all of the resources provided, the Government had utterly failed to make any meaningful progress. The Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee had repeatedly expressed serious concern with regard to the exercise of the right to freedom of association. Recalling the main conclusions of the Committee on this case in 2015, they expressed the view that the Government had failed on all counts. Firstly, concerning the amendments to the BLA and the adoption of Implementing Rules, some amendments to that Act had been adopted in 2013. However, the revised BLA continued to fall well short of international standards with regard to freedom of association and collective bargaining. In its comments published in 2015 and 2016, the Committee of Experts had “regret[ted] that no further amendments have been made to the BLA on certain fundamental matters”. The Committee of Experts had also underscored “the critical importance which it gives to freedom of association as a fundamental human and enabling right” and urged “that significant progress … be made in the very near future to bring the legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention on all of the abovementioned points”. In October 2015, the Government had finally issued the Bangladesh Labour Rules, many provisions of which violated the Convention. Of particular concern was that employers had a role in the election and filling of vacancies of Worker representatives in the participation committees. Workers on temporary contracts were unable to vote in such elections. Where no union existed, which was the case in the vast majority of workplaces, participation committees determined the representatives in the Safety Committees. The probability of management domination in these committees was high and clear and dissuasive sanctions for acts of interference appeared to be missing. Secondly, concerning freedom of association in EPZs, trade unions were banned and only WWAs were permitted in these zones. WWAs did not have the same rights and privileges as trade unions. While the EPZ authorities claimed that collective bargaining was permitted, this was not the case. There were also numerous cases in which leaders of WWAs had been laid off in retaliation for the exercise of their limited labour rights. On repeated occasions, the Committee had called on the Government to allow full freedom of association in EPZs. The Government had nevertheless refused to do so, pointing to the assurance given to investors years ago to keep these zones union free. The High-level Tripartite Mission “observed with concern the separate legislation for factories in the EPZs and the limitations on freedom of association and collective bargaining in these zones”. In February 2016, the Cabinet had approved a draft Bangladesh EPZ Labour Act, which had been submitted to Parliament in April. However, the Government had failed to engage in consultations with Worker representatives concerning this draft. Under the proposed law, workers in the EPZs would still not be able to form unions. All the provisions of the 2010 law in relation to WWAs had been incorporated into the draft. The Government claimed that it could not allow unions because of prior promises made to investors, but this was no excuse. The Government’s obligations and the tripartite conclusions concerning this case could not be clearer. Thirdly, with regard to the investigation and adjudication of cases of anti-union discrimination, there was a serious lack of commitment to the rule of law. At all levels, law enforcement was almost non-existent. Many union leaders of the unions registered after 2013 had suffered retaliation. Some union leaders had even been brutally beaten and hospitalized. Entire executive boards had been dismissed. In some cases, the police, at the apparent behest of factory management, had intimidated and harassed trade unionists. This was confirmed by the conclusions of the High-level Tripartite Mission report in paragraph 46, which “noted with concern the numerous allegations of anti-union discrimination and harassment of workers” as well as “blacklisting, transfers, arrests, detention, threats and false criminal charges”. The responses by the labour inspectorate had been extremely slow, and most union leaders or members illegally dismissed for trade union activity had not yet been reinstated, nor had the employers been punished for those egregious violations. Police routinely failed to carry out credible investigations in cases of anti-union violence, if such investigations were carried out at all. The Worker members were aware of over 100 acts of anti-union discrimination in factories where new trade unions had been registered. In the few cases where workers had been reinstated, this was due to international campaign pressure on brands, not because of labour inspection and enforcement. They finally referred to a drastic case of anti-union discrimination, in relation to which several complaints had been filed with the Ministry of Labour and Employment to no avail.

Finally, with regard to trade union registration, the Worker members indicated that following the Rana Plaza collapse, the Government had temporarily reversed its no-union policy in the RMG sector in response to intense international pressure. Therefore, new unions had been formed and successfully registered. However, in 2016, the situation had nearly returned to the pre-Rana Plaza days. In 2015 alone, the Joint Director of Labour (JDL) had rejected 73 per cent of all new union applications, in particular from the most active independent garment federations. The approval of a union’s application remained at the absolute discretion of the JDL, allowing it to reject legitimate registration applications. With regard to the number of newly registered trade unions since 2013, the Government had failed to mention that this number had decreased by over 100, as nearly 50 unions were now inactive due to anti-union retaliation and over 50 factories in which trade unions had been established were now closed. According to the mission report, the procedure for registering unions “had the likelihood of discouraging trade union registration” and various tactics that had been used which had led to the high rate of rejection of new applications. This was a deliberate policy of the Government and not a technical issue. With increasing regularity, factory management were now seeking injunctive relief from the courts to stay union registrations that had been properly granted. This practice constituted a gross violation of the right to freedom of association; indeed, the post hoc resort to the courts itself was a highly questionable use of the judicial process to frustrate trade unions after the registrar had already found the registration application to be in order. The Government’s hostility to freedom of association had been confirmed by the High-level Tripartite Mission. The Government had repeatedly broken the trust of the Committee with empty promises. It was time for this to finally change.

The Employer members thanked the Government for the detailed information provided. They recalled that following the 2016 observation from the Committee of Experts, the Government had accepted a High-level Tripartite Mission to the country in April 2016; the High-level Tripartite Mission’s report had been provided to the Conference Committee in advance of the discussion of the present case. In its latest comments, the Committee of Experts had noted with interest the establishment of a helpline for labour-related complaints targeting the RMG sector in the Ashulia area. The Committee of Experts had also noted that the Bangladesh Labour Rules were published on 15 September 2015 as part of the implementation of the BLA, and had welcomed the issuance of the Rules, trusting that they would assist in the implementation of the BLA in a manner fully consistent with the Convention. The Employer members joined the Committee of Experts in welcoming these positive developments and encouraged the Government to expand the operation of the helpline to other areas of the country. With regard to the registration of trade unions, they noted that the High-level Tripartite Mission considered this process as heavily bureaucratic, and further recalled the concerns expressed by the Committee of Experts in respect to this overly complicated procedure. They urged the Government to establish standard procedures in order to ensure that the registration process would set out requirements of a purely formal nature and would not, owing to its bureaucratic nature, itself become an obstacle to the registration of unions. In respect of the Committee of Experts’ comments on the minimum membership requirements for forming a trade union, they stressed that these requirements must be viewed in the national context. It was also important, in this regard, to consider that a proliferation of trade unions could be counterproductive to the development of healthy industrial relations and economic growth. The Employer members further urged the Government to provide information to the Committee of Experts on the steps taken to amend the BLA since 2013. They welcomed the initiative reported by the Government to provide training to workers and employers on the issue of anti-union discrimination, and asked the Government to continue with these capacity-building activities. With regard to the issue of the EPZs, they noted that a situation of separate legislative frameworks for enterprises within and outside the EPZs remained. The BLA applied to employers operating outside the EPZs, whereas a number of provisions of the EPZ Workers Welfare Association and Industrial Relations Act of 2010 collectively constituted a separate legislative scheme for employers operating inside the zones. The provisions of the Act did not allow workers and employers to form organizations of their own choosing. In respect to the EPZ concerns raised by the Committee of Experts, the Government had indicated that a draft of the EPZ Labour Act had been sent to the Ministry of Law for vetting prior to submission to Parliament. The Employer members noted that this draft law appeared to have been prepared with limited engagement of the national social partners, who indicated that they either were not consulted or were allowed very limited consultation in respect of this bill. They further noted that the High-level Tripartite Mission in its report had expressed concerns over the draft EPZ Labour Act, as it restricted the freedom of investor employers by requiring them to form central investors’ associations, rather than organizations of their own choosing. While having noted the information supplied by the Government to the effect that the above-noted dual legislative framework had arisen out of concerns to ensure the attractiveness of the EPZs to foreign investors, they urged the Government to ensure that the draft EPZ Labour Act allowed workers and employers to establish organizations of their own choosing, and to fully consult with the national social partners in this regard. Finally, the Employer members asked the Government to provide information on the labour laws applicable to the special economic zones as the Committee of Experts had requested.

The Worker member of Bangladesh considered that despite its claims of progress, the Government still denied workers their right to freedom of association in law and in practice as confirmed by the recent report of the High-level Tripartite Mission. Workers in all sectors in Bangladesh who attempted to organize and form trade unions faced severe and, at times, violent retaliation from employers without the Government making any serious effort to hold accountable those who violated the law. Workers whose contracts of employment were terminated due to trade union activity were almost never reinstated, unless Global Unions undertook a lengthy international campaign against the global garment brands. Therefore, he was deeply concerned with the Government’s continued denial of the right of freedom of association to workers in EPZs. In spite of several revisions to the Bangladesh Labour Rules, no guarantees had been provided to ensure the right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing without interference from public authorities, which would restrict this right or impede its lawful exercise. The draft law prepared by the Government in 2016 and submitted to Parliament in April 2016, maintained the same exclusion of workers in EPZs from its scope of coverage. It was further stressed that WWAs were not unions, and collective bargaining in the EPZs was extremely rare. Moreover, workers who attempted to organize were dismissed, and prohibited by law from seeking the assistance of trade unions or non-governmental organizations outside of the EPZ. The new implementing Rules of the BLA were two years overdue and of poor quality. While trade unions had been consulted, the executive decrees created new obstacles to the right of freedom of association. For example, Rule 81 empowered the worker participation committee to elect the workers’ representatives in the safety committees while RMG employers largely controlled the process of establishing worker participation committees, and by extension occupational safety and health committees in light of Rule 82. The trade union movement in Bangladesh believed that there was no alternative to free trade unionism to ensure sustainable development, maintain industrial integrity and uphold democracy. In this regard, social dialogue was seen as important and the only way to achieve the desired goals. However, the Government had appeared before the Conference Committee both before and after the Rana Plaza disaster and continued to make promises that it did not uphold; the time has come to witness concrete results.

The Employer member of Bangladesh emphasized that, apart from being one of the most densely populated countries of the world, there were an additional 1.8 to 2 million youths every year joining the estimated 50 million economically active people in the labour market. Therefore the greatest challenge was not only to sustain the level of employment but also to create jobs for the millions who were joining the labour market and impart to them the right skills that would facilitate job search within the country and overseas. Recalling the fact that Bangladesh ratified 29 ILO Conventions within a year of its independence in 1971, the speaker indicated the full commitment of the country to safeguarding fundamental human rights, including freedom of association, and to ensuring compliance with international labour standards. With job creation, a greater space had been shaped for trade union rights and appropriate amendment to laws. Citing the economist, Dani Rodrick, the speaker referred to a time dimension as a prerequisite condition for achieving progress towards implementation of the Convention and indicated that the BLA, as amended in 2013, was to be considered one of the measures taken in this direction. He also mentioned that the tripartite partners would be continuously reviewing progress in line with the recommendations of the recent High-level Tripartite Mission. The speaker recognized activities of the ILO country office in Dhaka, seen as essential for the implementation of the Convention and aimed at promoting decent work in Bangladesh, fostering tripartism and building capacities of the social partners. Recalling the previous examinations and conclusions of the Conference Committee as well as the Committee of Experts, the Employer member brought attention to the issues raised in the last observations, specifically: the request to modify the law governing EPZs allowing for full freedom of association, including to form trade unions and to associate with trade unions outside of EPZs; harassment for participation in trade union activities; registration of union organizations without previous authorization; and excessive requirement for initial and continued union registration. He further noted that this case had not been the subject of a representation procedure under article 24 of the ILO Constitution. In the light of the recent High-level Tripartite Mission, which was welcomed by all the constituents, the speaker expressed his regret that this particular case had been shortlisted before the Mission had had the opportunity to share the findings in its report. The speaker commended the amended BLA, which had been done through tripartite consultations. Considering that Rules under the Law had been published in September, barely eight months ago, he suggested that the stakeholders ought to be allowed to observe implementation of the law for a reasonable time before making another attempt for further amendments. He also believed that the complaints lodged by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) would be verified through proper investigation by appropriate government agencies and further indicated that the registration process for trade unions had been made easy and open through the latest amendment to the BLA. Trade unions and their leaders were protected under various provisions of the BLA, including, inter alia, complaints procedures, anti-union discrimination penalties and remedies for aggrieved workers. The speaker strongly believed that the existing threshold of 30 per cent worker membership in an enterprise was realistic for union registration and lowering it would encourage a proliferation of unions without bringing any positive change to the bargaining strength. He also noted a particularity of the agricultural sector, 99 per cent of which was under small individual ownership and with a limited number of seasonal temporary workers. With regard to the request of the Committee of Experts to amend a number of sections of the Bangladesh Labour Rules, the speaker pointed out that a one-size-fits-all approach could not have been suitable and laws needed to be enacted in line with ILO Conventions as well as taking the socio-economic development of the country into account. A draft of the Bangladesh EPZ Labour Act, incorporating a provision for constitution of trade unions under the name of Shramik Kollyan Samity in the EPZs, was agreed by the Cabinet on 15 February 2016 and was expected to be enacted. The speaker concluded by reiterating the need for time in a process of development and expressed his hope for further support and cooperation.

The Government member of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the member States of the European Union (EU), as well as Albania, Iceland, Republic of Moldova and Norway, welcomed the Government’s acceptance of a High-level Tripartite Mission in April 2016, and noted that progress on a number of issues had been achieved in the framework of the Sustainability Compact, which, inter alia, outlined concrete commitments in respect of freedom of association. For instance, an online registration system for trade unions had been established, as well as a helpline for cases of violence against trade unionists targeting the RMG sector in the Ashulia area. In respect of the latter, he encouraged the Government to expand the helpline nationwide and provide information on the follow-up given to the calls received. These positive developments notwithstanding, serious issues remained in respect of the application of the Convention. For example, the number of registrations of trade unions had dropped significantly in recent months, and a number of registered trade unions no longer operated in practice. In this regard, he called upon the Government to ensure that trade union registration would be carried out in a transparent and expeditious manner. It was equally important, moreover, to ensure that unfair labour practices would be effectively investigated and prosecuted. He also urged the Government to amend the BLA so as to: (1) lower the minimum membership requirement of 100 workers for establishing an agricultural trade union; (2) ensure that the definition of “supervisor” was limited to individuals truly possessing managerial authority; and (3) lower the 30 per cent minimum membership requirement for the establishment of a trade union. He reiterated the call expressed by others in the Committee for the Government to review the draft EPZ Labour Act, so as to ensure full freedom of association rights to workers in the said zones, as well as to indicate which labour laws were applicable to the special economic zones. He concluded by affirming the EU’s commitment to continuing its intensive cooperation with the Government in the framework of the Sustainability Compact – in which Bangladesh, the United States, Canada and the ILO were partners – and urged the Government to take all the necessary steps to ensure a sound industrial relations system premised on respect for freedom of association.

The Government member of Switzerland, expressing regret that the Committee must once again discuss the issue of respect of the Convention by Bangladesh, supported the statement made by the EU. Given that in 2015 Switzerland had expressed concern about acts of violence and harassment directed towards trade unionists, it was to be hoped that the proceedings under way would be successful and would result in sanctions. In supporting the recommendations made by the Committee of Experts and the conclusions of the High-level Tripartite Mission, there were two points to highlight. Firstly, noting the reduction in the number of trade unions, she urged the Government to follow the recommendations made by the tripartite mission in that regard and to develop standard procedures for a simple and transparent trade union registration process. Secondly, the importance of having strong and coherent labour laws should be stressed. Noting with concern the shortcomings with regard to freedom of association and collective bargaining in EPZs, she asked the Government to implement the recommendations of the tripartite mission on that issue.

The Worker member of Canada, jointly with the AFL–CIO, stated that labour reforms had been initiated by Bangladesh in the aftermath of Rana Plaza with the revision of the BLA being identified as a priority to create a solid foundation upon which safety in the RMG sector could be built. While the BLA was revised in 2013, the vast majority of the observations of the Committee of Experts relating to freedom of association had not been addressed. Bangladesh had not lived up to its commitment to take into account the Committee of Experts’ observations under the terms of the Bangladesh Sustainability Compact, to which the EU, the United States, Canada, Bangladesh and the ILO were parties. Under the Compact, the Government had agreed to pass executive decrees to implement the BLA. The executive decrees of concern had been passed after a delay of two years, and even then, the Bangladesh Worker member noted that the executive decrees had actually created new problems with regard to the exercise of freedom of association. For example, some workers, who did not actually serve in a managerial capacity, were categorized as supervisors under the executive decrees, and consequently excluded from the BLA’s coverage. The executive decrees also failed to outline procedures for the resolution of unfair labour practices. Rule 202, in a general manner, restricted the actions that could be taken by trade unions. The fact that the Rules were so deeply flawed, despite the substantial ILO technical assistance, was further evidence that the Government had no intention to respect the ILO supervisory system or the rights of its workers. The Committee should hold the Government accountable for its obvious lack of political will to comply with its legal obligations. Canada had been called upon to use its leverage, as part of the Bangladesh Sustainability Compact, to promote compliance with the right to freedom of association in the “ready-made garment and knitwear industry” in Bangladesh, consistent with Canada’s commitment to improving conditions for workers in Bangladesh. Canada had also been urged to apply all the tools at its disposal to strengthen Bangladesh’s political will to advance workers’ rights and to achieve full compliance with the Convention, in all sectors in the country.

The Government member of the United States indicated that the Government of Bangladesh had been requested to appear before the Committee every year since the tragic Rana Plaza building collapse in April 2013 and underlined that this year was the third discussion on freedom of association. Noting the increased attention of the Committee to this case in recent years, she pointed out a lack of progress in this regard and recalled last year’s statement of the United States Government regarding a decline in the rate of union registrations, obstacles related to the application process as well as significant and worrisome reports of unfair labour practices, which included violence against trade unionists and unfair dismissals. Referring to the Committee of Experts’ recommendation that union registration should be a simple formality, she called on the Government to establish standard procedures for union registration that would be transparent and not subject to discretionary authority. Furthermore, she urged the Government to establish a system for the thorough and timely investigation of the mentioned unfair labour practices, and to provide for redress, including reinstatement. Recalling the increased attention to the issue of freedom of association in Bangladesh’s EPZs since 1991 of both the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee, the speaker reiterated that WWAs, as provided in the current and proposed law, were not equivalent to, or substitutes for, trade unions that were free to organize their own activities and to affiliate with other organizations outside the EPZs and urged the Government to ensure that its laws would allow for full freedom of association in the EPZs, including private EPZs, and in future economic zones such as the planned special economic zones. The speaker urged the Government to amend the BLA and its regulations in line with the Convention and observations of the Committee of Experts. She concluded by inviting the Government to take full advantage of the technical assistance from multiple sources and to implement the recommendations of the High-level Tripartite Mission, and of this Committee, without further delay.

An observer representing IndustriALL Global Union explained that her organization represented over 50 million workers in 140 countries in the manufacturing, mining and energy sectors with affiliates in RMG and shipbreaking. The issue of the refusal to register trade unions was particularly endemic in the RMG sector. While in the immediate aftermath of the Rana Plaza disaster and due to international pressure, new unions had been registered in the RMG sector, it had become increasingly difficult to do so over the previous two years. According to the data compiled by the Solidarity Centre in 2015, 134 applications for registration were filed with 61 unions granted registration and 148 rejected; and as of mid-April 2016, 13 applications were submitted with three approvals and 14 rejections. It was clarified that the sum of accepted applications and rejected ones did not add up to the total number of applications submitted, due to the fact that applications were kept pending from one year to the next. Moreover, the Government of Bangladesh made no progress in creating a database to track the registration process, and the Committee was urged to take note of this point. It also appeared from the data of the Solidarity Centre and the information provided by the affiliates of the IndustriALL (the National Garment Workers’ Federation (NGWF), the Bangladesh Garment and Industrial Workers Federation (BGIWF), Bangladesh Federation of Workers Solidarity (BFWS)), that applications filed by independent unions had a greater risk of being rejected even when they fulfilled all requirements. Ten of the IndustriALL affiliates submitted 61 applications in 2015, of which only 18 unions (with a total membership of 4,600) were registered and six applications remained pending with the JDL. The latter’s refusal of registration for various reasons showed the difficulties created in the registration process. One illustrative case was an RMG factory (Hanwen) where the JDL had rejected the application for union registration on the grounds that some workers claimed as members had not been aware of the union, and because the office bearers and some of the members had not belonged to that factory. The reality was that some of the workers were issued backdated termination letters after the union filed for registration, and new workers had been recruited just prior to the scheduled inspection required before registration. Therefore, the Committee was urged to take note that the JDL had absolute discretion in deciding applications for registration and that this issue was not addressed by the executive decrees issued under the BLA of 2013. Furthermore, the executive decrees of September 2015 made it mandatory to include the identity cards of all members whose names are part of the application for registration, giving rise to fears of harassment of union members. Further to the aforementioned obstacles, employers were approaching courts to seek injunctions on unions which had actually been granted registration with the result of ex-parte ad-interim orders being issued. These orders had the effect of not allowing a union to function, even after being duly registered. A case in point was that of a garment factory (Donglian Fashion) where the IndustriALL affiliate, the Sommolito Garment Sramik Federation (SGSF) had been organizing. The workers formed a union and managed to register it on 29 January 2015. The management filed Writ Petition No. 1244/2015 in the High Court alleging that registration to the union had been granted unlawfully by the JDL. The union had not been made a party to the court proceedings. Instead, the High Court, after hearing the employer, had issued an order on 30 November 2015 staying the registration of the union for six months pending the hearing of the Writ Petition. It was only following interventions from IndustriALL and affiliates in Japan, that there had been an agreement to withdraw the Writ Petition and to reinstate union activists who had been terminated earlier. With regard to the shipbreaking sector, affiliates organizing in the Sitakund yards submitted that shipbreaking yards were difficult for unions to access. In addition, the deaths of workers in shipyards had led to unions focusing more on safety issues. In conclusion, the Committee was urged to take note of the aforementioned issues that adversely impacted on workers’ rights to organize.

The Government member of Thailand welcomed the ongoing efforts of the Government to promote compliance with the Convention, as well as its commitment to promote labour welfare, trade union rights and collective bargaining through labour law reforms and an increase of minimum wages. The Government should be given appropriate time to carry on its efforts.

The Worker member of the Philippines recognized previous concerns raised by the Committee of Experts in relation to the issue of freedom of association in Bangladesh and failure of the Government to ensure the possibility for workers to exercise their fundamental rights in practice. Observing a continuous lack of commitment to the rule of law, particularly with regard to anti-union violence, the speaker indicated that the leaders of a range of unions registered after 2013 had been suffering retaliation, in some cases violent; had been physically assaulted; and most had been illegally fired for trade union activities. He mentioned as well a slow responsiveness of the labour inspectorate. The speaker provided three examples of individual cases in support of the statements mentioned above. The first referred to an assault of the trade union president of a garment company, who was attacked, together with her husband, by several armed men in August 2014. The second example illustrated the incidence of 60 workers being fired at the RMG Washing Plant with at least one being physically assaulted. The SGSF affiliated union indicated that the retaliation had escalated once the union made a request to management in March 2014 related to collective bargaining negotiations. The speaker mentioned that the management had filed false criminal charges against union leaders. Finally, the third case related to the termination of 48 union members, including most of the leadership, by the management of a factory in September 2014. The speaker indicated that a peaceful protest outside the factory resulted in a clash with the police, summoned by the management, after which five workers, including the union president, underwent medical treatment. The speaker referred to the report of the ITUC, IndustriALL Global Union and UNI Global Union containing more than 100 cases of anti-union discrimination in factories, where new trade unions had been registered and had been expressing criticism towards the Government for failing to guarantee freedom of association. He urged the Government to align its laws and practices, and comply with its obligations under the Convention.

The Government member of China commended the Government for having taken a number of positive measures to apply the Convention, such as having introduced amendments to the BLA and conducted training on anti-union discrimination. He also observed that workers in EPZs enjoyed freedom of association rights. The Government had made sincere efforts to fulfil its obligations under the Convention, these efforts needed to be recognized and supported with technical assistance of the Office.

The Worker member of Germany said that the Confederation of German Trade Unions (DGB) wished to address the issue of persistent violations of freedom of association in EPZs in Bangladesh. The freedom to form an organization in defence of one’s rights was a universal right, and Convention No. 87 was one of the fundamental ILO Conventions. This right should apply to all, but it did not exist in Bangladesh’s EPZs. These zones were specially designated as industrial zones where enterprises could produce goods for export only. For these enterprises, labour, social and environmental laws had been redefined, and the right to organize did not exist. It should be noted that the same law should apply to all, throughout a territory; human rights should not stop at the gates of EPZs. It should be pointed out that WWAs were a parody of a replacement for trade unions and indeed could not replace them, given that they did not carry the same legal weight as a trade union and could be run by an employer. These associations could not therefore engage in collective bargaining, as an employer could not negotiate a collective agreement with itself or call for strike action against itself. Although the Government had referred to a draft EPZ Labour Act, this draft did not respect freedom of association in these zones and, consequently, the problem of applying the law would become worse. In 2015, US$403 million had been invested in EPZs, so funding was available. In these zones, workers suffered physical and psychological violence and humiliation in the workplace because of the lack of workers’ rights. It would be a mistake to consider the draft EPZ Labour Act as a step forward. Following the dramatic events of the past, a great deal of public attention was focused on working conditions in the textile industry in various countries. To conclude, an appeal was made to the Government as the German Government planned to invest in Bangladesh through the creation of the Vision Zero Fund. This would not be possible unless freedom of association was guaranteed for all workers in Bangladesh, in accordance with ILO Conventions.

The Government member of Cuba said that applying good practices in the area of cooperation would be advisable and encouraged the Government to continue moving in that direction through dialogue, information exchange, help for capacity building, and mutual recognition of progress made and challenges to overcome.

An observer representing UNI Global Union stated that violations of freedom of association were all too common in both the garment and telecommunications sectors. In both sectors, the Government refused to register trade unions and workers were dismissed with impunity for trying to organize. In respect of a trade union established by the employees of the nation’s largest telecommunications company, he stated that the company had dismissed 163 employees, including seven union officers, the day after having learnt of the union’s existence. The Government had also repeatedly refused to register the union and, after prolonged court proceedings, had appealed the Labour Appellate’s court decision finding in favour of the union and ordering the latter’s registration; a judgment of the appeal was still being awaited. Throughout these proceedings, he stated further, the company had maintained the untenable position that virtually all of its 3,000 employees could not form a union as they were all supervisors or managers. On 7 February 2016, workers at the second largest telecommunications company submitted an application to register the union, called BLEU. This effort drew immediate acts of reprisal from the company, including the dismissal of a union activist and threats made against union members. Furthermore the Government had refused to register the union, although it enjoyed a membership rate of 35 per cent. At a third telecommunications company, employees had managed to successfully register a union on 17 July 2014. However, shortly thereafter the company’s management launched a campaign aimed at convincing members to leave the union. Additionally the union’s treasurer was assaulted and dismissed, and on 27 March 2016 the Labour Directorate had informed the union that a case had been filed seeking the cancellation of the latter’s registration. It was abundantly clear, thus, that the Government had no intention of ensuring respect for freedom of association.

The Government member of Sri Lanka observed that the Government had made substantial steps to recognize freedom of association rights and improve work safety in EPZs, and appreciated the measures taken to promote social dialogue among the stakeholders. He asked the Government to continue its efforts with the technical assistance of the Office.

The Government member of Canada commended the progress made to improve working conditions in the RMG sector and welcomed the information provided in the report of the High-level Tripartite Mission. Freedom of association and collective bargaining, as fundamental elements of an effective labour relations system, needed to be further strengthened within the RMG sector and extended to other sectors of the economy, including EPZs and special economic zones. He called on the Government to reaffirm its commitment to transform the economically important RMG sector and to advance women’s empowerment. The speaker expressed concern in relation to the high rejection rates of trade union registrations in 2015 and 2016, despite an overall increase in registrations, and noted the High-level Tripartite Mission’s finding regarding the related procedures and 30 per cent membership requirement that may have been seen as obstacles to trade union registration. He commended the Tripartite Mission’s recommendations and appreciated the cooperation of the authorities and stakeholders with the Mission. Recognizing the achievements made, he underlined the need to ensure an open and transparent environment in which trade unions and workers’ committees can freely and effectively fulfil their roles. Regarding the BLA of 2013, he noted the Committee’s request to make amendments in certain fundamental areas and urged the Government to work in a tripartite manner in order to bring forward amendments that are in conformity with the Convention. The speaker concluded by reiterating the commitment of Canada to work with all stakeholders to improve safety and workers’ rights in Bangladesh, in particular in the RMG sector.

The Government member of India expressed appreciation regarding the follow-up made by Bangladesh on the main recommendations formulated by the Conference Committee in 2015 and for having accepted the High-level Tripartite Mission of April 2016. However, the report of the tripartite contact mission had been shared with Bangladesh only a few days after the admission of the case against it by the Committee, while the Government had been undertaking labour reform processes to harmonize its national laws with the Convention, as well as other steps to improve workplace safety and compliance. In this regard, reference was made to the specific measures initiated to strengthen enforcement by increasing recruitment of labour inspectors, investing in their training while enhancing regular inspections of RMG factories and increasing access to complaint mechanisms through the hotline. The Government had been actively engaged with the ILO and had availed itself of technical assistance in implementing many of the aforementioned measures, including the development of the Tripartite National Plan of Action on Fire Safety and Structural Integrity in the RMG Sector. Bangladesh was also in the process of adopting a comprehensive EPZ Labour Act to further protect labour rights, including the right to form associations in the EPZ enterprises. The speaker trusted that the Committee would fully take into account the detailed responses provided by Bangladesh on its compliance with the Convention, when finalizing its recommendations.

The Government member of Egypt noted the steps undertaken by the Government to amend the BLA so as to ensure the protection of workers’ rights in establishing and joining unions of their own choosing. The Government had stressed its complete respect for international labour standards and its full commitment to the Convention. Bangladesh was encouraged to pursue this course of action and to undertake additional steps in the framework of social dialogue, which guaranteed the participation of all parties. In this respect, it was hoped that the Office would provide the necessary technical support.

The Government member of Qatar expressed his gratitude to the Committee and the Government for the discussion and the detailed description of the measures taken. He welcomed the progress made.

The Government member of Malaysia commended the Government for having accepted the High-level Tripartite Mission in April 2016. She stated that she shared the Government’s view that the Committee’s decision to hear the present case was premature, given that the tripartite mission’s work was still continuing. Nevertheless, the measures reported on by the Government signalled a strong commitment to protecting the rights and improving the welfare of workers. She called upon the Committee to recognize these measures as progress made in the implementation of the Convention.

The Government representative thanked the members of the Conference Committee for their constructive comments. With respect to the issues relating to EPZs, he stated that the social partners had been engaged in the drafting of the EPZ Labour Act. In March 2014, for instance, the Bangladesh EPZs Authority had consulted on that bill with representatives of workers’ and employers’ organizations in the EPZs. He underscored that the EPZ Act of 2010 ensured freedom of association and collective bargaining rights, and that 135 officials comprising 90 counsellors cum inspectors and 45 industrial relations officers were presently engaged in the EPZs to ensure compliance with the relevant laws. Seven labour courts and one labour appellate tribunal had been designated to address disputes in the EPZs. A total of 161 cases had been filed with the EPZ labour courts since their establishment in 2011, of which 86 had been settled. Intensive training programmes were also being carried out by the Bangladesh EPZs Authority on issues falling under the EWWAIRA, fire safety, health and hygiene safety, industrial relations, grievance handling procedures and social dialogue processes. In the period 2014–15 a total of 700 such programmes had been conducted. Referring to paragraph 40 of the High-level Tripartite Mission report, he stated that his Government had accepted to initiate the implementation of the social dialogue project in the RMG sector, focusing on: (1) improving social dialogue; (2) collective bargaining; (3) dispute prevention and resolution; (4) conciliation; and (5) arbitration, with special consideration given to female employees. He added that the project would continue to provide training to build the capacity of labour officers to handle cases of anti-union discrimination, and establish a “Workers’ Resource Centre” that would act as a centre of excellence for workers’ training and awareness building. On the registration of unions, the BLA had been amended to simplify the registration procedure. Moreover, an online registration system had been established with ILO technical assistance. He stated that in 2013, 64 trade unions had been registered, a figure representing 46 per cent of all applications. The rate of registration had been 42 per cent in 2014, and had dropped to 27 per cent in 2015. Nevertheless, the rate of registrations thus far was 64 per cent, and this increase was due to the awareness-raising measures the Government had undertaken. With regard to the harassment of trade unionists, notably in the RMG sector, the enforcement agencies were always mindful of the need to ensure workers’ welfare and handled reported cases in a manner consistent with national laws. In some cases, however, it had been trade unionists who had committed crimes by inciting violence in the industrial sector, blocking roads or vandalizing factories. In such cases, it had been necessary for the authorities to act to protect property and restore order; nevertheless the authorities always acted cautiously to ensure their actions did not result in the harassment of trade unionists or the disruption of trade union activities. In respect of trade unions in the telecom sector, he stated that at present there were two unions in one of the largest telecom companies in the country. In paragraph 40 of its report the High-level Tripartite Mission had welcomed the progress the country had made by, inter alia, the creation of a labour complaint helpline, the establishment of an online registration system and the implementation of numerous training and capacity-building programmes aimed at improving industrial relations. The Mission, moreover, had noted that through these initiatives the Government had demonstrated its commitment to improving the freedom of association situation in the country. He concluded by affirming his country’s readiness to work with the social partners, the ILO and all development partners in promoting freedom of association, in line with the national legislation and the Convention.

The Employer members thanked the Government for the detailed information provided and encouraged further cooperation with the social partners and the ILO with a view to ensuring that social dialogue would lead to changes in law and practice. They urged the Government to ensure the establishment of the standard procedures that would guarantee that the trade union registration process requirements were not overly bureaucratic and were not constituting an obstacle to such registration. They further urged the Government to ensure that the law governing EPZs allowed for freedom of association, providing employers and workers the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. They also requested them to provide further information about the way Rules pursuant to the BLA were applied in law and practice. The Employer members called for implementation of the recommendations of the High-level Tripartite Mission without delay and urged the Government to make real and meaningful progress in this regard. Recalling the issues raised in their opening statement on this case, they urged the Government to achieve progress in relation to all the issues discussed through constructive social dialogue.

The Worker members recalled their experience in the country, as part of the High-level Tripartite Mission, and stated that the Government was making it nearly impossible for workers to organize or join a union. Workers were threatened and intimidated by management, and at times by police, local thugs and political operatives. In some cases, these threats turned into dismissals or into severe beatings. Some union activists were forced to sign blank pages, which were then turned into resignation letters. The labour inspectorate or the police did nothing to stop this, to punish an employer, to get a worker reinstated or to compensate for the harm caused to the workers. There appeared to be no labour justice for workers. Workers in all sectors were denied their right to form unions. The Government either delayed or denied new union registrations by using tactics such as disqualifying the signatures for the slightest mismatches, and by constantly invoking requirements that were not in the laws. The Government had failed to comply with nearly every international commitment. It had ignored the observations of the Committee of Experts, the conclusions of this Committee, the Bangladesh Sustainability Compact, and even its trade obligations. Every year, they told the Committee that they would do better, but returned the following year without having complied with the conclusions. This was not due to the lack of technical assistance or resources, as the ILO and numerous international donors had made welcome investments in industrial relations, but simply because there was no will. The Worker members urged the Government to comply with the 2015 conclusions of the Committee as well as with the recommendations of the recent High-level Tripartite Mission. They requested that the conclusions of the Committee be placed in a special paragraph.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed on issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee welcomed the report of the ILO high-level tripartite mission and noted with deep concern that the Government has failed to make progress on the repeated and consistent conclusions of this Committee despite the substantial technical assistance and financial resources provided by donor countries.

Taking into account the discussion of the case, and taking into account the conclusions of the Committee of 2015, the Committee repeats it concerns and urges the Government to:

• ■ undertake amendments to the 2013 Labour Act to address the issues relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining identified by the Committee of Experts, paying particular attention to the priorities identified by the social partners;
• ■ ensure that the law governing the EPZs allows for full freedom of association, including the ability to form employers’ and workers’ organizations of their own choosing, and to allow workers’ organizations to associate with workers’ organizations outside of the EPZs;
• ■ investigate as a matter of urgency all acts of anti-union discrimination, ensure the reinstatement of those illegally dismissed, and impose fines or criminal sanctions (particularly in cases of violence against trade unionists) according to the law; and
• ■ ensure that applications for union registration are acted upon expeditiously and are not denied unless they fail to meet clear and objective criteria set forth in the law.

Further, we invite the Government to implement the recommendations of the 2016 high-level tripartite mission together with the social partners.

The Committee decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of the report.

The Government representative underlined that the Government had just received the report of the high-level tripartite mission and had yet to discuss it with the relevant ministries and social partners. In view of the need to reflect on its content and continue the dialogue, he did not see any rationale behind proposing a special paragraph. This decision set a bad precedent.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2015, Publication: 104th ILC session (2015)



A Government representative indicated that trade unions were protected under the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 as amended in 2013, and that acts of discrimination against trade unions were subject to legal action. In accordance with the Labour Act, the Department of Labour received complaints and dealt with them in due time. Between January and April 2015, a total number of 182 complaints had been brought before the Department of Labour, all of which had been investigated, 177 settled and five had been filed as criminal cases. In addition, in March 2015 a telephone helpline had been launched, initially to enable the workers in the Ashulia area to present their claims. This telephone line would be expanded to be operational nationwide. With regard to export processing zones (EPZs), 60 counsellors and inspectors were engaged to deal with labour disputes. Furthermore, EPZ labour courts had been created in 2011, before which 160 cases had been brought, of which 70 had been settled. Referring to the allegations of harassment against trade unionists and trade union leaders, he indicated that in 2012 a case of homicide against a trade unionist had been referred for investigation to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). The Government had brought this case under the ambit of “sensitive cases” to ensure its regular monitoring and expeditious trial. Turning to the registration of trade unions, he indicated that 7,495 trade unions were registered with the Department of Labour. The amendment of the Labour Act in 2013 had given rise to a significant number of registrations of trade unions. Moreover, the Department of Labour had established an online registration system in order to simplify the process of registration. With regard to the process of the amendments to the Labour Act, which encompassed 83 provisions, he explained that the modifications introduced were the result of a tripartite consultative process, with the technical assistance provided by the ILO. The major amendments of the Labour Act were: the abolition of the provisions providing for the submission of the list of workers to the factory management before creating a trade union; the incorporation of a provision for the formation of workers’ participatory committees through direct election by workers; the incorporation of a provision for obtaining support from external experts for collective bargaining; as well as the strengthening of a provision on workers’ safety. Following the adoption of the amendments to the Labour Act, the Government had undertaken the formulation of implementing regulations and ordinances. To this effect, intensive consultations had been held between April and May 2015 with the social partners. The Draft Regulations had subsequently been submitted to the Tripartite Consultative Council (TCC) on 2 June 2015, which had discussed them and reached consensus on their content. The Draft Regulations were now being sent to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs for vetting and publication in the Gazette. In addition, he indicated that the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977, had been repealed and were therefore no longer applicable. With regard to the elaboration of a comprehensive EPZ Labour Act, he indicated that it had been drafted, and consultations on the draft EPZ Labour Act had been held with the workers’ representatives of EPZs, investors and other relevant stakeholders. The opinions expressed during the consultations had been addressed as far as possible in the light of the relevant ILO Conventions. The draft EPZ Labour Act had been adopted by the Cabinet in July 2014 and subsequently sent to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs for vetting and submission to Parliament for adoption. In order to safeguard the right of freedom of association the Government, had also focused on strengthening institutional capacity building. To this effect, the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments had been provided with more staff and the number of staff had risen to 993. Recently, the Government had recruited 222 inspectors, bringing the number of inspectors to 279. In parallel, the budget for the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments had been increased by nearly four times and 23 new district offices had been established. In conclusion, he gave assurances of the Government to commitment to international labour standards and expressed his appreciation for the constructive engagement of the ILO to promote labour rights through technical cooperation. The Government expressed its commitment to continue its efforts to promote freedom of association through social dialogue and effective cooperation of both the national and international levels.

The Worker members recalled the recent second anniversary of the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory and noted that some progress had been made, particularly with regard to inspections relating to building and fire safety, but regretted that such progress was almost exclusively attributable to private initiatives. Very much work nevertheless remained to be done to protect freedom of association and to ensure respect of the law. It remained extremely difficult for workers to exercise their right to freedom of association in Bangladesh, which suggested that the improvements achieved in the area of building and fire safety and other working conditions might not be lasting. With regard to legislation, the amendments introduced in 2013 to the Labour Act fell far short of conforming with international standards relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining, in particular with respect to: the establishment of an excessively high threshold for membership for forming a union; the restriction on the right to elect representatives in full freedom; the numerous restrictions on the right to strike; and the broad administrative powers that allowed for, inter alia, cancellation of trade union registration. In 2015, the Committee of Experts had regretted that no further amendments had been adopted and had called on the Government to make significant progress in that regard. The European Union and the United States, both signatories to the Sustainability Compact, had also insisted on a new series of amendments to the Labour Act. The information provided by the Government on these points should be verified as, despite its reiterated promises, the Government had still not published the new implementing regulations relating to the 2013 Labour Act, thereby jeopardizing the transition to a sustainable ready-made garment (RMG) industry.

Over 400,000 workers were employed in the production of garments and shoes in EPZs, from which trade unions were prohibited and where only workers’ associations, which did not have the same rights or guarantees, could be established. Although the authorities in EPZs maintained that collective bargaining was authorized, it did not exist in practice and many union leaders had been dismissed with impunity in retaliation for having asserted their few rights as workers. In 2014, the Cabinet had adopted a new draft law on EPZs, which had not yet been promulgated, and which continued to prohibit workers from establishing trade unions, while providing for workers’ associations as the only means of engaging in employment relations, and prohibiting these associations from contacting non-governmental organizations. Furthermore, the RMG industry in Bangladesh was beset by a climate of anti-trade union violence, and impunity, with certain cases of beatings, some of which resulted in hospitalization, and the dismissal of entire trade union councils. The labour inspectorate and the police continued to fail to respond to these acts in due time and none of the workers were reinstated following these flagrant violations. Trade union leaders and activists from a major enterprise in the RMG sector had been the subject of extremely brutal anti-trade union attacks, as demonstrated by surveillance videos. These attacks had happened after the management had dismissed the trade union leaders and members, and had refused to engage in any dialogue on the pretext that the trade unions’ sole intention was to destroy the industry. Investigations had concluded that the attacks had been carried out on the orders of the factory management. After having been harassed by the national intelligence services and the police, the trade union had been forced to accept a settlement, which had only been offered because it had been a headline story in The New York Times and owing to pressure from foreign clients of the enterprise. Moreover, little progress had been made in the investigation into the murder of Aminul Islam in 2012, and the Government should once again be called on to resume the investigation with a view to punishing the perpetrators.

With regard to trade union registration, it should be noted that approximately 300 new organizations had been listed since 2013, even though the long-standing official government policy was to automatically reject all trade union registration applications in the textile and garment sector. However, these new organizations, represented only a very small proportion of the predominantly women workers in the sector, which was estimated at more than 4 million workers. Around 40 of these new trade unions had been targeted in anti-union attacks, and a similar number no longer existed following factory closures. Almost a third of the new trade unions registered since 2013 no longer existed. Furthermore, the number of registration applications that were rejected was in fact on the rise, of 26 per cent in 2014 compared with 18 per cent in 2013. Moreover, a significant number of applications were left in suspense well beyond the 60-day time limit and no database was in place to monitor the processing of these registration applications. Ultimately, approvals of applications for registration were at the total discretion of the Joint Director of Labour, who in some cases refused to accept the application even if all the requested information had been provided. This body had also reportedly received the order for a blanket rejection of all applications from the three independent trade union federations from the garment industry, on the pretext of their links with international organizations. In conclusion, the Worker members expressed their deep concern at the statements made by several high-level Government representatives with regard to workers. They cited the example of the Dhaka Apparel Summit in 2014, where the Prime Minister had warned that national or foreign critics of working conditions in Bangladesh were involved in a conspiracy against the textile and garment industry, and that of the Minister of Trade who had accused the trade unions of providing foreign governments with sensitive information on the situation of workers in Bangladesh, and calling for measures to be taken against them. The Government would gain in stature if it addressed challenges rather than threatening those who took action to defend the interests of workers.

The Employer members observed that the case comprised four main aspects, namely: the lack of investigation and results relating to violence and harassment of trade unionists; the slow progress in the registration of trade unions and the requirement to meet a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments for initial or continued union registration; the need for consultation with the social partners over proposed changes to the Labour Act, which contained many provisions relating to matters concerning freedom of association; and the complaints of restrictions and harassment of attempts to organize workers in EPZs. They noted that the Government was committed to complying with international labour standards. However, it was important to put the case into perspective and for it to be examined taking due note of its context. Recent changes emanated from the outcomes of the assessments made on the grounds of incidents such as the Rana Plaza disaster and many of the changes affected a relatively new and rapidly growing RMG sector. While significant changes were required, they observed that some of the issues of the case were related to frustration with the progress made, rather than the rejection of the need for change. They added that it was also important to ensure that matters were dealt with in the right jurisdiction. With regard to cases of violence and harassment, there had been numerous complaints alleging violence against, and harassment of, unionists since 2012, including the homicide of a trade unionist in 2012. The examination of such cases had to be carried out taking into consideration their context. It was common that RMG factories shared spaces in the same building or adjacent buildings, and in the event of industrial dispute in one factory, workers in other factories joined in the demonstrations, which frequently resulted in violence. Hence there was a demarcation line between labour disputes and public protests. The latter had to be dealt with by criminal law. Turning to the right to organize, elect officers and carry out trade union activities freely, the Employer members acknowledged the widespread union concern over an alleged refusal to register unions in several sectors. They noted, however, that 7,222 trade unions were registered in the country and that in the last three years over 700 registrations had been recorded. They considered that these data did not indicate an opposition to the establishment of trade unions. The issue appeared to be more related to the efficiency of processing applications for registration. Turning to the legislative reforms, they needed to be placed in the context of the Rana Plaza disaster. Many changes had already been made, particularly in the area of occupational safety and health. The Government had indicated that the process leading to the amendments to the Labour Act had been based on extensive tripartite consultations. In addition, supplementary regulations to implement the Labour Act, as amended, were under preparation. As to the requirement to meet a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments for initial or continued union registration, they noted that such restrictions were not unusual, nor prohibited. In this regard, the Employer members expressed concern at the opinion of the Committee of Experts which considered that the establishment of threshold limits for the formation of unions interfered with the workers’ right to form organizations of their choosing. In the view of the Employer members, taking into consideration the national context, a proliferation of trade unions could be counter-productive to the development of healthy industrial relations and economic growth. Moreover, in many countries the threshold limits for the formation of unions were even higher. As to the right to form federations, the Employer members acknowledged the comment made by the Committee of Experts requesting the Government to review the relevant provisions so as to ensure that the requirement of the minimum number of trade unions to form a federation did not infringe the workers’ right to form federations. To this end, considerations on the practicability of making such provisions operational should be taken into account. Turning to the right to organize in EPZs, they noted that EPZs were common mechanisms to stimulate economic growth by attracting foreign investment. The rules governing EPZs should comply with the labour standards ratified by the host countries of the EPZ. For this purpose, Bangladesh had established an Export Processing Zone Authority (BEPZA) which reported on the manner in which EPZ Workers’ Welfare Associations and Industrial Relations Act, 2010, was applied. The Government had indicated that the BEPZA would consider the comments made by the Committee of Experts and the need for any changes in the light of the experience accumulated. Moreover, based on the discussions held by the Conference Committee in 2013, the Government had expressed its intention to work with the ILO on how EPZ workers could be brought into the scope of application of the national labour law to ensure freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining and other matters concerning labour standards. In addition, a high-level committee had been created to examine and prepare a separate and comprehensive labour law as an international standard for EPZ workers. The work of this committee was ongoing. In conclusion, the Employer members considered that the process was complex and not easy. The Government should therefore avail itself of ILO technical assistance aimed at ensuring that workers in EPZs were fully guaranteed their rights under the Convention.

The Worker member of Bangladesh emphasized that about 88 per cent of the workforce in the country was employed in the informal sector. She indicated that many of the industries in Bangladesh, such as the textile, steel and jute industries, had been closed. The closure of the factories had in effect reduced the activities of some of trade union federations and some trade unions had become inactive. The RMG sectors had evolved in the 1980s and now provided employment for about 4 million workers, of which 85 per cent were women from rural areas. These workers were not aware of any rights and were insufficiently paid, with a minimum wage of 3,000 Bangladesh Taka (BDT) since 2010, and an increased amount of BDT5,300 in 2013. While recalling the Rana Plaza collapse and the Tazreen fire incident which had caused the deaths of over 1,200 RMG workers, she appreciated the national and international initiatives to ensure safety at the workplace. While acknowledging that with the massive training under the ILO initiative, the number of trade unions in this sector had increased from 115 in 2012 to the present 450 trade unions, she regretted that this was still not sufficient in relation to the number of factories. However, despite this increase, cancellation of the registration of trade unions by the Department of Labour appeared to discourage the workers from uniting. The trade union movement in Bangladesh had always been fighting for protection from harassment by some employers who, being unaware of the benefits of trade unions, resorted to harassment of trade union leaders. Referring to their active protest against the Government, which had resulted in the withdrawal of cases filed against three trade union leaders, she called on the Government to take the necessary measures against such unfair labour practices and requested the ILO to exert pressure on the Government in this regard. Although the 2013 amendment of the Labour Act had brought about some positive changes, there still remained provisions which were not labour-friendly, such as the requirement of support from 30 per cent of workers for the establishment of trade unions. She urged the Government to initiate further amendments to the Labour Act covering the informal economy and to adopt and publish the regulations under the Labour Act without delay, as well as to take the necessary measures for their proper enforcement. In addition, the EPZ Labour Act, which had been approved by the Cabinet in 2014, needed to be adopted without delay in order to uphold workers’ rights in EPZs. There had not been any visible progress in the trial related to the murder of the RMG trade union leader in 2012. The Government should complete the trial on a priority basis and ensure exemplary punishment. She emphasized the necessity for a free, fair and responsible trade union movement which would not only ensure workers’ rights, but also sustainable industrial development through increased production. She expressed the hope that the Government would ensure effective social dialogue to achieve these goals. Lastly, she requested the ILO to continue providing technical assistance for capacity building of the trade union movement in Bangladesh.

The Government member of Latvia, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Members States, as well as Montenegro, Serbia, Albania, the Republic of Moldova and Armenia, noted the progress achieved in trade union registration, in particular in the RMG sector since the amendment of the Labour Act in 2013. The Government should continue to ensure that union registration processes were concluded in a timely manner and in accordance with due process, strengthening administrative capacities to this end. In this regard, the Government should continue to provide detailed information and statistics on the registration of trade unions. Moreover, it should guarantee effective, expedient and transparent investigation and prosecution of cases of violence and harassment against trade unions and workers’ representatives. With respect to the Labour Act, the Government should take measures as a matter of urgency to adopt implementing regulations and to amend the provisions requiring a minimum membership threshold of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed to register a trade union, as well as the requirement of at least five trade unions to form a federation. She also urged the Government to hold full consultations with the social partners in order to elaborate new legislation for EPZs in conformity with the Convention so that workers could enjoy full freedom of association and collective bargaining rights. In conclusion, she expressed renewed commitment to continue intensive cooperation with the Government in the framework of the Sustainability Compact, to which Bangladesh and the EU were signatories.

The Government member of Switzerland indicated that his Government endorsed the statement made on behalf of the Member States of the EU.

The Employer member of Bangladesh, referring to the comments made by the Committee of Experts, said that many of the RMG factories either shared space in the same building, in adjacent buildings or were in close proximity to other factories. Consequently, when an industrial dispute arose in one factory, workers in several factories came out on the streets, joined by outsiders, which resulted in violence, vandalism and public disorder. On such occasions, the Government had to deal with the situation under criminal law, rather than labour law. He deplored any incident wherein anyone, be it a worker, employer or trade union leader, was hurt or killed in such violence. With regard to the registration of trade unions, the earlier requirement of sending the list to the management with the names of workers who wanted to form a union had been eliminated. He argued that any change in the threshold for registration of unions, as well as federations, would result in a proliferation of unions and federations which would be counter-productive to healthy industrial relations and economic growth. He indicated that this threshold was much higher in many countries. Consultations with the social partners over proposed changes to the labour legislation had been ongoing, while a draft EPZ Labour Act had been prepared based on consultations and sent to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs for vetting. Recognizing the activities of the ILO to promote decent work and productive employment opportunities for men and women in Bangladesh, as well as to enhance working conditions and labour rights, he hoped that with time progress would be made.

The Worker member of the United States said that registration was the first step in the long process of building organizations for workers to exercise freedom of association and an industrial relations system that would be needed to advance decent work. He alleged that the Government was doing little to support this process, despite being required to do so by the Convention, despite its stated desire to consolidate its role as a major actor in the global RMG sector and despite considerable support from the international community in this sector, since the Rana Plaza disaster. Although, this would take time, the State must promote and facilitate this process which would lead to mature industrial relations and a sustainable economy. The inadequate measures and persistent delays in issuing the implementing regulations to the amended Labour Act was a matter of concern. In addition, he expressed concern that the draft of the proposed regulations did not clearly and objectively define the procedure and criteria to be followed for scrutinizing documents while processing applications. Apparently the Registrar of Trade Unions maintained broad discretionary powers. Moreover, the provision requiring all unions to renew their registration every three years could be used to exert pressure on workers’ organizations and bargaining rights. The problematic registration rules, coupled with the Government’s poor union registration practices, had led to increased rejection of union applications at a disturbing rate. The reasons provided by the Government for rejecting unions ranged from the questionable to the absurd, and included: the refusal to let government inspectors enter the factory to investigate; allegations that payroll signatures did not exactly match those on union membership forms; government inspectors’ claim that they could not find the union office even when the same officers had previously visited the same union office; and interviews of workers about their union activity by government inspectors in the presence of the management, which had previously threatened and intimidated them. The online registration process had also failed to operate efficiently. In 2015, rejections outnumbered registrations by 31 to 26. He concluded that the Government had shown neither the political will nor a culture of facilitating the access of workers to freedom of association.

The Government member of Norway, also speaking on behalf of Iceland, emphasized that freedom of association was the foundation for other democratic rights and that trade union activities should not be unjustifiably curtailed. Moreover, trade unionists should under no circumstance face intimidation, violence or harassment. While investigations of complaints and progress in the registration of trade unions were to be welcomed, two years after the Rana Plaza tragedy concerns remained, with regard to working conditions in the country. Moreover, trade unions and workers continued to face obstacles in the enjoyment of freedom of association, particularly with respect to delays in registration and the high membership threshold to form trade unions. The Government should act expeditiously and decisively to investigate, prosecute and convict those responsible for violence and harassment against trade unionists and to ensure adequate protection of trade union representatives and members. While recognizing the significance of the RMG industry to the economy, she emphasized that the implementation of the Decent Work Agenda, including freedom of association, occupational safety and health, and decent wages was essential to ensure inclusive economic development in the long run. The Government should collaborate with the social partners, producers and buyers to take measures to ensure responsible supply chains in line with ILO standards and the principles of corporate social responsibility. In conclusion, she invited the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance.

An observer representing IndustriALL said that Bangladesh was monitored regularly by the supervisory bodies of the ILO in relation to the violence of the factory management against trade unionists and impunity of the persons responsible for such acts of violence and harassment. The Government had not made serious efforts to bring the perpetrators to court and the measures adopted up to now had been far too slow. She emphasized that cases of reinstatement of workers had only occurred as a result of international pressure, and not at the initiative of the Government. She gave several examples illustrating the widespread violence against trade unionists. She emphasized that the brutal attacks against trade unionists must end. The Government could not claim that progress was being made while failing to take significant measures to bring an end to violence and the impunity of the persons responsible for such acts.

The Employer member of South Africa recalled that the recent results obtained in terms of legislation demonstrated that tripartism should continue to play a major role in labour law reform and called upon the social partners to continue to engage in social dialogue in order to address all the issues arising in the country. If the majority of problems relating to the right to strike and freedom of association were discussed constructively in the appropriate places, they would be resolved quickly. Condemning violence against trade unionists, he called on the Government to resolve the issue through law enforcement.

The Government member of Qatar took note of the information provided by the Government representative and encouraged the Government to pursue its efforts to give effect to its obligations under the Convention. The ILO should also continue providing technical assistance to Bangladesh to promote the rights of workers. The conclusions of the Committee should reflect the efforts made by the Government.

An observer representing the International Transport Workers’ Federation welcomed some of the amendments to the Labour Act adopted in 2013, while expressing disappointment as the reforms fell well short of the requirements of the Convention. The adoption of the Labour Act in 2006 had been a backward step. The Committee of Experts had stated in 2007 that the new Act did not contain any improvements in relation to the previous legislation and in certain regards contained even further restrictions which run counter to the provisions of the Convention. It was therefore of great concern that the vast majority of the comments of the Committee of Experts had been disregarded by the Government. It was important to note, among other things, that there continued to be excessive limits on the right to strike and numerous restrictions on organizing, including in civil aviation and seafaring. For registration purposes, workers were still obliged to meet the minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in an establishment or group of establishments, which was a clear violation of Article 2 of the Convention. Referring to specific examples of violations of freedom of association as a result of restrictive labour laws, he indicated that in 2010, 13 dockworkers’ unions at the port of Chittagong had been dissolved following the disbandment of the Dock Workers Management Board under section 263(A) of the Labour Act. This had also been made possible by the Bangladesh Labour (Amendment) Ordinance 2008, under which only one trade union organization was permitted at this port. As the sole trade union existing at the port of Chittagong organized only permanent employees, subcontracted workers, as well as security personnel, firefighters and other workers had no trade union representation. While there were several registered unions in the civil aviation sector, this was only possible because the Labour Act allowed registration of aviation unions which first affiliated to specialist international organizations. Clearly, small unions with limited financial means could not always afford to affiliate to such organizations, making this a de facto restrictive requirement for registration. He urged the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the provisions of the Labour Act without delay in accordance with the comments of the Committee of Experts.

The Government member of Canada commended the Government of Bangladesh on the progress made to improve the working conditions in the RMG sector, but emphasized that more work remained to be done to achieve change in this important sector and to advance women’s empowerment. While freedom of association and the right to organize needed to be further strengthened in the RMG sector, these rights also needed to be extended to other sectors of the economy, including EPZs. Furthermore, recalling the need to ensure a more open and transparent environment in which trade unions and workers’ federations could freely and effectively fulfil their roles, he expressed concern at the ongoing violence taking place in the country against trade unionists and urged the Government to apply a policy of zero tolerance against such practices. He called on the Government to amend the Labour Act in certain fundamental areas, in consultation with the social partners, in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention. Finally, he expressed the commitment of his Government to work with all stakeholders to improve safety and workers’ rights in Bangladesh, particularly in the RMG sector.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom, noting that the Labour Act had serious flaws, recalled that Bangladeshi workers had been waiting almost two years for the adoption of its implementing regulations. There had been repeated promises, but no definitive action. The failure to issue those rules had jeopardized the transition to a sustainable garment industry and more mature industrial relations. The ILO Better Work programme and the training programme under the Bangladesh Accord depended on the adoption of those rules and regulations. At the factory level, the absence of the regulations meant that even where workers and employers wanted to set up representative systems and safety committees, they could not do so. International bodies had called on the Government to finalize the rules. On the second anniversary of the Rana Plaza tragedy on 28 April this year, the European Parliament had noted the importance of finalizing and implementing the rules without delay. While the rules should enhance labour rights and comply with core labour standards, the draft contained several significant shortcomings. Firstly, it did not set a procedure for the Department of Labour to deal with unfair labour practice complaints by workers. In the absence of strict deadlines to investigate and prosecute cases, the Department of Labour simply had not, and would not, respond effectively to address violations of labour legislation by employers. Secondly, the draft rules did not include any procedure for the registration of trade unions, and therefore permitted a situation in which the Registrar continued to enjoy “discretionary powers” which had been used to deny numerous applications for absurd reasons or for no reasons at all. Finally, in the absence of a trade union or a participation committee, the rules allowed for the Inspector General to nominate safety committee representatives. This might have serious consequences for the independence of safety committees, allowing interference by employers in the selection of representatives and in their functioning. These substantial failings needed to be addressed without delay.

The Government member of Nepal thanked the Government for the information provided on the legislative reforms (including the amendments to the Labour Act of 2006, the finalized draft regulations for its implementation, and the review of the legislation applicable in EPZs), as well as on the situation in the country concerning the application of the Convention. These reforms were to be commended as a means of improving the protection of labour rights, and the Government was encouraged to continue in this vein.

The Worker member of the Republic of Korea expressed deep concern that freedom of association was not fully guaranteed in the country. Supporting the comments made by the Committee of Experts in this regard, she emphasized the urgency of the adoption of new legislation applicable to EPZs. While the Cabinet had tabled a draft EPZ Labour Act to replace the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2010, this Act had been elaborated without the consultation of workers’ representatives and did nothing to address the concerns that had been raised in relation to the application of the Convention. In accordance with the existing and the draft legislation, it was impossible for workers in EPZs to establish trade unions. Workers’ welfare associations (WWAs) could not be considered as workers’ organizations within the meaning of the Convention, as they were heavily controlled by the BEPZA, which included the control of the procedure for their establishment, including a referendum of workers. However, in most cases, WWA leaders were determined by the employer and workers did not even know who represented them. Where these leaders tried to exercise the right to collective bargaining, they might easily be dismissed. She also referred to the example of the privately run Korean Export Processing Zone (KEPZ) established by a Korean manufacturer of garments and shoes. As there was no clarity in terms of applicable laws, the employer applied the law that suited him best, resulting in the payment of the national minimum wage that was lower than the one in EPZs, but also in the banning of trade unions in accordance with the law applicable in EPZs. She supported the request by the Committee of Experts for the Government to engage in full consultation with national workers’ and employers’ organizations with a view to elaborating new legislation for EPZs that was in full conformity with the Convention.

The Government member of the United States recalled the link between freedom of association and the ability of workers to contribute to their own safety at work. Progress had been made towards protecting freedom of association in Bangladesh over the last two years, particularly in the RMG sector, where hundreds of new independent unions had begun to engage in collective bargaining with enterprise management. However, progress was still at a very early stage. In particular, the right of freedom of association continued to be threatened as only weak protections existed in practice. This was reflected, among others, in the increased rate of arbitrary union registration refusals and instances of violence and retaliation against trade unionists without a meaningful government response. There was an opportunity to address some of the long-lasting concerns raised by the ILO supervisory bodies by adopting appropriate and meaningful regulations of the Labour Act. Nevertheless, the recent draft of implementing rules raised serious concerns. She urged the Government to issue implementing rules that complied with ILO Conventions and incorporated inputs from stakeholders, such as the need for transparent and democratic elections of workers’ representatives to participation and safety committees; the provision of fast and effective protection against retaliation and unfair labour practices; and support for the registration of independent unions avoiding the establishment of additional bureaucratic hurdles. Recalling that efforts by the EPZ Authority to attract and retain investments should not sacrifice the obligation to ensure workers’ rights and safety, she also encouraged the Government to pass legislation, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure EPZ workers the right of freedom of association fully in line with the Convention. Finally, she urged the Government to take strong measures to end violence against and the intimidation of trade unionists, and to conduct full and thorough investigations of outstanding cases, as these would threaten not only the fragile progress but also the country’s industrial relations in the years to come. Her Government remained committed to its partnership with the Government of Bangladesh to improve respect for workers’ rights.

The Government member of Indonesia recalled that over 7,000 trade unions had been registered in Bangladesh, including around 300 over the past two years, and he commended the Government for the reforms adopted, including the 2013 amendments of the Labour Act 2006, in consultation with the social partners. He hoped that the implementing rules would be adopted in the near future. He noted with satisfaction the steps taken by the Government to comply with the Convention in EPZs through the designation of eight labour courts competent for labour disputes and the recognition of the exercise of the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike of WWAs. Finally, he invited the Government, in cooperation with the ILO, to make all necessary efforts to address the challenges faced by Bangladeshi workers through the implementation of the Convention and the promotion of a better working environment in the country.

The Government representative indicated that the constructive comments made during the discussion would be very useful in the promotion of freedom of association and other workers’ rights in different sectors. Concerning the allegations of harassment of trade unionists, notably in the RMG sector, he said that the Government had addressed all reported violations of labour standards. Law enforcement activities had been necessary to restore public order, but had neither been aimed at disrupting trade union activities nor at harassing trade unionists. Registration of trade unions was an important issue and it was very important to raise awareness among workers of their rights and responsibilities, including the creation and functioning of trade unions. Since 2013, some 2,752 trade unionists had been trained in the area of freedom of association in the four institutes of industrial relations of the Department of Labour. Training had also been carried out for more than 3,175 participants in programmes supported by the ILO and other partners. In 2014, an awareness-raising campaign in EPZs had been organized by the BEPZA for elected members of WWAs on numerous issues, including occupational safety and health, industrial relations and grievance handling. He added that WWAs were guaranteed rights relating to collective bargaining and the right to strike. All information on trade union registration was accessible to the public and a user-friendly website was being developed to further facilitate this. Trade unions and workers were given the opportunity to seek redress against anti-union acts. The main reasons for refusal of the 46 applications for redress concerning the non-registration of trade unions filed in January 2015 included: the failure to inform the committees of the creation of the proposed unions; the late submission of applications; and the non-submission of application or identity cards of workers. In the case of the 29 applications for redress in the same month concerning anti-union discrimination, 18 had been successful, five concerned unfair labour practices, and nine had been rejected as the relevant requirements had not been fulfilled. In conclusion, he said that the process of the adoption of the rules implementing the Labour Act would be completed on a priority basis and that the Government was committed to promoting freedom of association of workers, as enshrined in the relevant Conventions.

The Worker members emphasized that both the observation of the Committee of Experts and the information supplied to the Conference Committee highlighted the abuse suffered by the workers of Bangladesh, in the form of poor conditions of work, inadequate wages or anti-union aggression. By insinuating that certain collective actions had been instigated by “thugs”, the Government had sent out the wrong signal. Despite the support and goodwill of the international community in the wake of the Rana Plaza tragedy, the Government had not taken the necessary steps to ensure respect for freedom of association. As a result, the United States had removed Bangladesh from the system of trade preferences. In April 2015, the European Union, through the European Parliament and the European Commission, had expressed concern at the lack of progress made by Bangladesh with regard to freedom of association. The increase in the number of trade unions registered during the previous two years in the RMG industry was positive, but not sufficient in itself, especially bearing in mind that nearly 100 trade unions had ceased to exist as a result of either anti-union practices or factory closures. The Government had also announced the drafting of rules to implement the Labour Act, but they had still not been adopted. The draft rules also appeared to contain problematic provisions. Moreover, the Government, police and the labour inspectorate often remained passive in the face of anti-union discrimination, threats and the violence committed against trade unionists. Such impunity sent out the wrong signal. In 2014, the Committee had asked the Government, as part of the examination of the application of the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), to prioritize the amendments to the legislation governing EPZs so as to bring EPZs within the purview of the labour inspectorate. The Government had disregarded those conclusions, since it had not taken any measures in that regard. In conclusion, the Worker members recalled the gravity of the situation and asked for a strong signal to be sent to the Government. A high-level tripartite mission should be conducted to convince the Government that it was essential for it to take the necessary steps to ensure freedom of association in law and in practice. Accordingly, the Government should: adopt and apply the implementing rules of the Labour Act, taking account of the issues raised by the workers that might compromise the exercise of freedom of association; amend the Labour Act to ensure its conformity with the Convention; secure to workers in EPZs the right to freedom of association; investigate all acts of anti-union discrimination, ensure the reinstatement of workers dismissed illegally and impose the appropriate penalties; and ensure that applications for trade union registration were processed quickly and accepted unless they failed to meet the objective criteria established by the legislation.

The Employer members said that the contributions made during the discussions had been helpful. Firstly, it should be made clear that all cases of violence and harassment should be investigated and the relevant procedures should be carried out expeditiously and fairly. In relation to the reform of the legislation respecting EPZs, it should be noted that changes were being made and even if many of those adopted following the Rana Plaza incident in 2013 were comprehensive, a number of aspects were yet unsatisfactory. The Employer members recalled the terms of Article 8 of the Convention, which provided that: “In exercising the rights provided for in this Convention workers and employers and their respective organisations, like other persons or organised collectivities, shall respect the law of the land”; and “The law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention”. It was important to recall that the whole Convention predicated on the fact that, irrespective of its principles, the reality of national law had to be taken into consideration. While it had been decided in the February 2015 tripartite meeting not to address the issue of the right to strike, which the Employer members considered as a matter of national law, it should be recalled that everything in the Convention was subject to the law of the land, as indicated in Article 8. When assessing the application of the Convention, a right balance needed to be struck to consider whether a situation infringed or supported the principles of the Convention. It would be useful for the ILO to provide assistance to Bangladesh in the process of reviewing its legislation, including the Labour Act and the EPZ Act, so that the overall outcomes, as provided for in the Convention, could be achieved and a distinction made between lawful industrial activities and public disorder. For the sake of decent work, dignity and absolute clarity, the balance between the law of the land and principles had to be respected.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the statements made by the Government representative and the discussion that ensued. The Committee noted that the outstanding issues raised by the Committee of Experts concerned numerous allegations of violence and reported harassment of trade unionists and trade union leaders and the absence of progress in investigations; delay in registration of new trade unions; the need to ensure freedom of association rights to workers in export processing zones (EPZs); and continued obstacles to the full exercise of freedom of association created by several provisions of the 2006 Bangladesh Labour Act.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government that two suspects have been identified in the trade union leader murder case. They are still at large but the case has been classified as a sensitive one to ensure regular monitoring and an expeditious trial. The Government stated that 182 complaints of unfair labour practices were received during the period between 1 January and 30 April 2015, 177 of which were settled and criminal cases filed with respect to five. A helpline for workers was established on 15 March 2015 and is expected to improve transparency and governance in dealing with complaints. The Government indicated that 7,495 trade unions and 172 federations were now registered, with a total of 450 trade unions in the ready-made garment sector, and an online registration system has been introduced to ease the registration process. A website has been developed for disseminating reports on registration and is being made more user-friendly. After adoption of the BLA amendments in 2013, the Government acknowledged that the major task incumbent on it was the formulation of the corresponding rules which has required time and several rounds of consultations. The rules, following discussion and consensus in the Tripartite Consultative Council, were now being sent to the Ministry of Law for vetting prior to publication as a Gazette notification. Similarly, the draft Bangladesh EPZ Labour Act was sent to the Ministry of Law for vetting. The Government was engaged in awareness and capacity building to ensure freedom of association through effective trade unionism to over 2,700 worker leaders since 2013. The Government concluded by expressing its appreciation for the constructive engagement of the ILO and development partners in promoting rights at work.

The Committee takes note that the rules to implement the 2013 Labour Act are now two years overdue, while also taking note of the information from the Government that the rules have been drafted and are expected to be enacted shortly. The Committee recalls that it has previously called on the Government to ensure that workers in EPZs are able to exercise freedom of association in law and in practice and once again calls on the Government to pass legislation which guarantees to workers in EPZs the rights protected by Convention No. 87. The Committee also takes note that the Committee of Experts regret that no further amendments have been made to the BLA. Finally, the Committee takes note of reports of anti-union discrimination, including acts of violence and dismissals.

Taking into consideration the discussion, the Committee urged the Government to:

• undertake amendments to the 2013 Labour Act to address the issues relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining identified by the ILO Committee of Experts, paying particular attention to the priorities identified by the social partners;
• ensure that the law governing the EPZs allows for full freedom of association, including to form trade unions and to associate with trade unions outside of the EPZs;
• investigate as a matter of urgency all acts of anti-union discrimination, ensure the reinstatement of those illegally dismissed, and impose fines or criminal sanctions (particularly in cases of violence against trade unionists) according to the law; and finally
• ensure that applications for union registration are acted upon expeditiously and are not denied unless they fail to meet clear and objective criteria set forth in the law.

The Committee urges the Government to accept a high-level tripartite mission this year to ensure compliance with the recommendations.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2013, Publication: 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Government provided the following written information.

The country was fully committed to complying with ILO principles to promote labour rights and trade union activities in Bangladesh. Bangladesh had so far ratified a total of 33 ILO Conventions, including seven fundamental Conventions. Regarding allegations of harassment of trade unionists and trade union leaders, notably in the garment sector, the Government was taking serious action on any violation of labour standards. To keep harmony and peace in society and for the welfare of industry as a whole, its law enforcement agencies did their duty as per the law of the land. There was no illegal threat or police harassment or arrest and detention of trade unionists and trade union leaders carried out by the law enforcement agencies and there had been no case of death under police custody or any illegal arrest. The victims, if any, were accused of their misdeeds and criminal activities, creating violence and crisis in the industrial sector, blocking roads and vandalizing factories which hampered the economic activities of the country to a huge extent. To make the situation normal, the law enforcement agencies took actions as per the law.

The aim of that action was not in any way to harass any trade union leader, to resist or to disrupt trade union activity in the country. The Government of Bangladesh strongly believed that freedom of association could be exercised in a situation that was free from violence or threat. It should be noted that no trade unionists had been detained for their activities. Regarding the registration of the Bangladesh Garments and Industrial Sramik Federation (BGIWF), the union was functioning without any obstacle. Due to allegations of violations of its constitution and unfair labour practices by the BGIWF, the Department of Labour, according to the provisions of the Bangladesh Labour Act, had filed a case in the Labour Court against the BGIWF in 2008 seeking permission to cancel its registration. The case was still pending in the Labour Court. If the allegation was proved, the union could lose its registration. The federation could appeal to the higher court for justice.

With regard to the amendment of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006, to keep pace with the changing global scenario in the world of work, the Government had initiated the amendment of the Labour Act to bring it more into line with ILO Conventions. Extensive tripartite consultations on the content of the amendment had been held, in particular in the Tripartite Labour Law Review Committee and the Tripartite Consultative Council. The whole drafting process had been shared with the Dhaka ILO Office to make it more compatible with international labour standards. The amendment had now been placed before Parliament and it was hoped that it would be enacted in the form of a bill in the current session of Parliament starting on 3 June 2013. In the amendment proposal for the Labour Act, special importance was being given to ensuring workers’ welfare, industrial safety, transparency in trade union registration, the wage payment system, and the promotion of trade unionism and collective bargaining. In this respect: (a) the provision regarding the submission of the list of workers intending to form trade unions to factory owners/management had been deleted; (b) workers would be able to obtain support from external experts in collective bargaining; (c) workers would have the right to form participation committees through direct election which could act as bargaining agents at workplaces under special circumstances. But this would not be a substitute for the trade union, and would rather facilitate trade union activities and collective bargaining. The amendment would thus bring the Labour Act more into conformity with international labour standards.

Regarding export processing zones (EPZs), the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Associations and Industrial Relations Act, 2010 (EWWAIRA 2010) provided for the formation of workers’ welfare associations (WWAs) with a right of collective bargaining. All elected executive committees of WWAs were actively performing their activities as collective bargaining agents with full freedom. Between January 2010 and March 2013, the Bangladesh Export Processing Zone Authority (BEPZA) had arranged referendums in 260 enterprises out of 339 eligible enterprises. Accordingly, 186 WWAs had so far been constituted. The BEPZA planned to arrange referendums in all the factories by 31 December 2013. WWAs would also have the right to call strike/work stoppages at the workplace from 1 January 2014. In order to promote the welfare of the workers in EPZs, the Government had formulated the “Constitution and Operation Procedures of EPZ Workers’ Welfare Fund, 2012”, which was already in force. In case of grievances, any worker could get an amicable solution by consultation with the counsellors appointed in EPZs. Additionally, EPZ Labour Tribunals and the EPZ Labour Appellate Tribunal had been established to settle complaints in EPZ areas. The BEPZA had already organized 392 training/awareness/motivational programmes for WWA members and workers regarding their rights and responsibilities and would ensure training programmes for WWA members/workers once a month in all zones. The BEPZA was always positive towards the formation of a WWA federation which would ensure full freedom of rights for workers. EPZs were restricted bonded areas and the BEPZA was committed to ensuring the security of foreign nationals and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). However, workers/WWA members were at liberty to do anything within the legal framework of the Constitution of Bangladesh outside the bonded area. Development partners had visited the different EPZ areas of Bangladesh and witnessed some referendums and elections for workers’ associations and workers’ welfare associations in EPZs and had expressed their satisfaction over free, fair and credible elections. The Government of Bangladesh was very committed to ensuring collective bargaining in EPZs. The EWWAIRA 2010 was only valid up to 31 December, 2013. It was planned to work with the ILO to find ways of bringing the EPZ areas under the purview of national labour law to ensure freedom of association, the right to bargaining and other issues concerning labour standards.

Concerning the exercise of the authority given by Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules (IRR), 1977, to the Registrar of Trade Unions (RTU) to enter trade union offices, inspect documents without judicial review, it should be noted that in normal situations the RTU did not enter the office of any trade union or federation for inspection unless the secretary or president of the trade union applied to the RTU for the removal of irregularities. In the context of Bangladesh, generally trade unions were reluctant to hand over offices and documents to the newly elected executives. Besides, the RTU frequently received complaints about embezzlement of union funds resulting in chaos in the establishment affecting productivity and the good environment. The RTU was the registering authority and could play a vital role in settling issues as per the provisions of the law. The role of the RTU in the matter was always subject to review by the judicial authority which guaranteed impartiality and objectivity. After the adoption of the rules under the Labour Act which had already been drafted, the IRR 1977 would no longer be applicable. This issue would be addressed after the amendment of the Labour Act when formulating the rules.

ILO technical assistance was already being provided to improve compliance with the Convention, particularly in the ready-made garment and shrimp industries. The initiatives taken included implementation of an ILO–International Finance Corporation (IFC) funded the better work programme in the ready-made garment sector and a USAID‑funded project in the shrimp sector. In the ready-made garment sector, the preparatory phase of the better work programme had been under implementation, namely “Promoting Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work in Bangladesh”. The project would contribute to ensuring the successful implementation of a potential fully-fledged better work programme in Bangladesh. The project aimed to support the amendment of the BLA 2006, improving the trade union registration system, capacity building for employers and trade unions and awareness raising. There were some concerns among the better work programme team relating to its implementation in Bangladesh. With the revision of the BLA 2006, the concerns would be allayed and the programme could be started soon. Further, to improve the labour standards situation in the shrimp sector, the Government of Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Shrimp and Fish Foundation (BSFF) and the Bangladesh Frozen Food Exporters Association (BFFEA) had already signed an agreement with the development partners for the implementation of a USAID-funded project. The BEPZA was looking forward to ILO technical cooperation for the further improvement of the workers’ rights in EPZs in Bangladesh.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the high propensity for the migration of workers from one factory to another had been a major reason for trade unionism not having taken root in Bangladesh, particularly in the garment sector. Other factors in the non-expansion of trade unions could be lack of education and awareness. The Government was trying to address this situation by organizing education, training and awareness programmes for workers through industrial relations institutes. The Government had recently introduced the online registration of trade unions on a pilot basis. The implementation of promotional activities under ILO technical assistance would surely improve labour law compliance in the country, including ensuring freedom of association and the right to bargaining in accordance with the Convention.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative referred in particular to the range of measures taken with respect to the allegations of harassment of trade unionists and trade union leaders; the registration of the BGWIF; the amendment of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006; EPZs; Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977; and the technical assistance received from the ILO.

The Employer members indicated that the Committee had examined this case on 18 occasions since 1983, most recently in 2008. At that time, the Committee had requested the Government to eliminate all restrictions on freedom of association and to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Government had reiterated on different occasions that it was working on the amendment of its legislation, but that there were no positive results. The Committee had expressed the hope, when it last examined this case, that the new Labour Act would be in conformity with the Convention. However, when the Committee of Experts had examined the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, it observed that all the provisions considered contrary to the Convention had remained. The Conference Committee had been then forced to request the Government once again to amend its legislation. The Employer members indicated that, according to their understanding, the Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF) had participated in the elaboration of a new Labour Act in the framework of the Tripartite Labour Law Review Committee and that the new Labour Act would be enacted by Parliament in June 2013. The Employer members expressed the hope that this could be considered as a positive development and that the new law would be in full conformity with the Convention. With respect to the implementation of the Convention in practice, the Employer members agreed with the Committee of Experts that workers’ and employers’ organizations could only exercise their rights in conditions free from threats, pressure and intimidation of any kind. This year, the case concerned allegations of violence and harassment of trade union leaders and trade unionists and the refusal to register unions in several sectors. The Employer members urged the Government to take the necessary measures to investigate the allegations related to violence and harassment of workers and to ensure full compliance with the Convention.

With respect to the EWWAIRA, the Employer members noted that the Committee of Experts had made 13 observations on the provisions of the Act with respect to the right to organize and the right to strike. Concerning the right to strike, they recalled their opinions as put forward in the framework of the examination of the General Survey and the general discussion in 2012. They reiterated that the right to strike was not expressly mentioned in the Convention and that there was no consensus in the Committee in that respect. The Committee of Experts had also referred to the existence of a multitude of complex regulations related to the EWWAIRA that hindered the establishment of workers’ organizations and, in this respect, had urged the Government to bring its legislation into full compliance with the Convention. With respect to Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977, the Employer members expressed their understanding that this provision had been repealed by virtue of the adoption of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006. They welcomed the establishment in EPZs of industrial relations offices to settle complaints and requested the Government to provide additional information in that regard. They also welcomed the information provided by the Government concerning the technical assistance already provided by the ILO, as well as the better work programme under implementation, and expressed the hope that it would successfully implement the Convention in the ready-made garment sector. They expressed their support for the amendment of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, the improvement of the procedures for trade union registration and the development of awareness-raising activities. They urged the Government to request ILO technical assistance to help it bring its law and practice into full compliance with the Convention.

The Worker members observed that, since the Conference Committee had last met, the world had watched in horror as over 1,000 garment workers had perished in Bangladesh. In November 2012, in the Tazreen Fashions factory in Dhaka, over 100 workers trapped inside by locked doors had died either from the smoke and the flames, or as they leapt from the windows in a desperate attempt to escape. In April 2013, the nine-story Rana Plaza building had collapsed on the outskirts of the capital city. The building had housed garment factories that produced apparel goods for retailers based in the United States and the European Union (EU). Large cracks in the walls had appeared the previous day, alarming both workers and building engineers. Nevertheless, the management of the garment companies had insisted that the workers report to work. Both of these unimaginable tragedies were, in part, the result of the fact that, until very recently, unions had been essentially prohibited from operating in the massive garment industry. With collective representation, workers could have more easily removed themselves from the hazardous workplaces before it was too late and insisted that the hazards be addressed. Furthermore, it had been reported that the previous week the police had opened fire at a protest by former workers at Rana Plaza factories who had taken to the streets to complain of their treatment by the authorities.

For many years, the Committee of Experts had reiterated its serious concerns with regard to the numerous deficiencies in the laws as they related to freedom of association and the utter failure of the Government to ensure that workers could exercise this fundamental right in practice. Regrettably, up to now, the Government had failed to act on the Committee of Experts’ recommendations. Moreover, in its current report the Committee of Experts requested the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to carry out investigations regarding the murder of trade unionists. The Worker members recalled that Mr Aminul Islam, President of the BGIWF Savar and Ashulia regional committee, had been found dead on 5 April 2012. His corpse showed signs of torture and, from the information available, it appeared that he had not been the victim of random violence, but rather targeted for his trade union work. His murder had no doubt been meant to send a clear message to trade unions not to organize in the garment industry. Although some suspects had been interrogated, no one had been arrested, and much less prosecuted for this crime. Particularly troubling was the statement made by the Prime Minister casting doubt on the fact that Mr Islam had never been a labour activist, even after the murder had featured in the international media. The Government could delay no further in making sure those responsible for Mr Islam’s murder were arrested and prosecuted appropriately. Furthermore, although it had referred to the killing of two bidi cigarette workers and the wounding of over 35 others by security guards on 16 July 2012, the Government had provided no information whatsoever as to the steps it had taken to prosecute the plant manager, who gave the order to the guards to open fire on a crowd of 3,000 workers who had staged a demonstration at the factory gates in an attempt to recover unpaid wages and to seek a pay raise. For several years, the Committee of Experts had also extensively criticized the law regulating labour relations for the tens of thousands of workers in EPZs. The EWWAIRA established a legislative framework for the exercise of labour rights in EPZs. However, the law fell well short of the Convention in that, among other things, workers were prohibited from forming trade unions but instead only workers’ associations. The EWWAIRA, rather than addressing the many shortcomings in the law, as identified by the Committee of Experts, extended the effective date of the existing scheme for another three years. Even this flawed Act could not be fully utilized, as rules and regulations still needed to be promulgated for many of the provisions of the Act to take effect. For example, a federation of workers’ associations could not be legally formed until the BEPZA had issued regulations. The BEPZA had yet to issue those regulations, thereby deliberately preventing workers’ associations from forming a federation in EPZs. There had also been no progress on bargaining in EPZs, largely due to BEPZA’s insistence that there was no room for collective bargaining on any working conditions above the minimum standards already established in the EWWAIRA and in BEPZA Instructions 1 and 2. The Government had still not signalled its intent to amend the Act, thereby depriving workers in EPZs of the possibility of even forming or joining trade unions.

With regard to the Labour Act, the Worker members observed that the Committee of Experts had, since its promulgation, expressed deep regret that it did not contain improvements over the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 and, in some respects, made the situation worse. There had in fact been a tripartite process to revise the Labour Act for over a year, and indeed worker representatives had participated actively in this process. As the Committee of Experts had noted, however, the revisions being considered when the report had been prepared “do not take into account most of the observations previously raised by the Committee”. That still remained true and, in fact, even fewer issues with regard to freedom of association were addressed in the proposed amendments. The Worker members expressed concern regarding the revision of the Labour Act as they understood that the proposals had just been submitted to Parliament for deliberation. In their view, addressing only one issue fully would represent serious contempt for the work of the Committee of Experts. Although the amendments proposed some improvements in areas unrelated to freedom of association, they introduced other changes prejudicial to unions and workers. The Government needed to take this opportunity to ensure that the amendments addressed the observations of the Committee of Experts.

Finally, roughly 29 new unions have been registered in the last few months. The long standing failure, or indeed refusal, to register trade unions, particularly in the garment sector, had always been a question of political will, and not a legal matter. Because of the substantial external pressure applied by foreign governments and the ILO, the Government had again permitted unions to be registered. It was obvious that the Government would stop registering unions as soon as the pressure was off. Indeed, that had been the case before. The registration of trade unions or employer associations should be a mere formality. For too long, the registration process had been tantamount to obtaining previous authorization. Industrial relations were built on the foundation of a sound legal framework, recognized worker and employer representatives, and collective bargaining. These did not exist today in Bangladesh. Instead, the legal framework was deeply flawed, most workers worked without representation due to a long-standing policy of refusing to register unions and collective bargaining coverage was minimal at best. If the Committee was to avoid the tragedies of recent months, it should urge the Government to make changes.

The Worker member of Bangladesh expressed his shock following the recent incidents in the ready-made garment sector where numerous lives had been lost. While acknowledging the Government’s efforts in the rescue operations, in the provision of medical treatment and compensation, as well as in rehabilitation programmes, he considered that the tragedy could have been avoided had there been adequate supervisory and monitoring mechanisms in the country. Inadequate security and inspection services had failed to ensure industrial safety. He urged the Government to take the necessary steps to strengthen labour inspection, the fire services and building inspection and to identify those buildings that were currently at risk in order to ensure that such incidents could never happen again. He also urged the Government to take measures so that those responsible were punished. He emphasized that the ready-made garment sector employed 3.5 million workers, most of whom were rural women. This had helped the empowerment of women. However, the profits had not been adequately distributed and workers in the sector did not enjoy decent working conditions. He expressed his support for sustainable development in the ready-made garment sector. The effective implementation and enforcement of international labour standards, including the right to organize and to bargain collectively, were the only alternative to uphold labour rights. He believed that the better work programme would help in this regard and urged the Government to take steps to ensure its full implementation. With respect to the registration of trade unions, he indicated that, under the Labour Act, upon receiving an application for registration of a new trade union, the registry authority had to provide the list of leaders to the employer. This gave the opportunity for unscrupulous employers to dismiss trade union leaders. He welcomed the fact that the proposed new Labour Act, as amended, would repeal this provision and expressed the hope that it would be enacted in the near future. He referred to other provisions of the Labour Act that were not in conformity with the Convention. With respect to measures for online trade union registration, he called on the Government to take steps to improve the system and to train workers to familiarize them with it. While welcoming the steps taken by the Government in order to allow labour courts and the Labour Appellate Tribunal in EPZs, he indicated that freedom of association almost did not exist there. Moreover, the Labour Act was not applicable in EPZs. He emphasized that participation committees and workers’ welfare associations could not replace the work of trade unions.

The Worker member of the United States stated that horrendous yet preventable disasters in the Bangladesh garment industry since 2005 had taken the lives of over 1,800 workers. In the shipbreaking industry, there were over 40,000 workers, among them many teenagers migrating from the poorest parts of the country, who worked with virtually no protections or rights and no union representation. Three attempts to create workplace-based unions had been denied registration by local governments, even though 70–95 per cent of workers supported the union and allies had provided expert advice. In this industry, at least one worker had died every month since 2005. The National Institute of Preventive and Social Medicine (NIPSOM) had found that 88 per cent of the workers interviewed had suffered some form of accidental injury while working in the Chittagong shipbreaking yards. At least now, after the death of well over 1,000 workers at Rana Plaza, people in positions of power were noting that the freedom to form unions was central to any solution. The highest United States diplomat for South Asia had bluntly stated in his Senate testimony the previous week that: “had there been a union representative on the ground at Rana Plaza that tragedy would not have happened”. Among the many well-documented, continuous and systematic violations of the Convention that explained why there was no union representative present, the persistent refusal of the Government to register trade unions was obvious, basic and undeniable. No doubt the Government would point to the very recent registration of over 27 garment workers’ unions. However, 21 of these were registered after the November 2012 Tazreen fire and increased media attention. How many lives would have been saved by making it possible to have a union representative present by taking the first simple step of recognizing a union’s legal existence by processing and communicating its registration to workers and their elected leaders? Yet, even when this simple step was taken, it was necessary to remain vigilant. Most of the garment workers who had successfully registered new unions since the Tazreen fire had faced termination and other anti-union discrimination and none had been able to secure formal collective bargaining agreements. Given the difficulties faced by workers in organizing unions, their survival was dependent on broader civil society allies, nationally and internationally. Worker allies, like the Bangladesh Centre for Workers Solidarity, had repeatedly been harassed and charged with criminal offences and had their legal registration challenged and revoked. Once again, in the context of international pressure, the Government had undertaken to restoring this registration, which it had to honour. The accord on fire and building safety that had been negotiated and signed by local unions, the Industrial Global Union and UNI Global Union, and non-governmental organization allies with international brands and local suppliers offered a way forward in industrial relations in the Bangladesh garment sector. It supplemented and improved Government efforts that had so often failed. However, just as commitment and action were required by multinational companies and local producers, legally recognized and registered workplace unions were central to this solution. The tripartite accord urgently required the Government to register and respect the growth and day-to-day operations of real unions with a strong presence in the workplace, as well as action from the Government and the ILO. More multinational companies whose supply chains drew heavily from the Bangladesh garment industry should sign on. He called on the Government to honour many recent commitments to register unions and respect organizing and bargaining rights. The international labour movement would remain watchful for positive developments, and return to this and other forums to support Bangladesh’s workers as they sought to claim their rights.

The Employer member of Bangladesh reaffirmed the commitment of the BEF to the promotion of freedom of association in the country. Despite being one of the least-developed countries in the world, confronted with many challenges and upheavals, Bangladesh had made remarkable progress in fulfilling the targets of some of the Millennium Development Goals and was visible in global affairs in terms of exports, particularly ready-made garments, shrimps, leather and leather goods, frozen foods, jute and jute goods. However, Bangladesh needed to significantly improve its overall governance standards, attain sound political systems and stability and address social safety nets and security issues so that it offered decent work for all its citizens. While appreciating the observations made by the Committee of Experts, he stressed that, while workers had the right to negotiate and resolve issues through discussion, in practice, in most cases, a different scenario was observed, involving vandalism, blockades, fires, the destruction of equipment and machinery. This took place with the support of certain external miscreants, who were in no way believed to be actual workers or trade union leaders, resulting in a chaotic situation at the factories. At times, such unrest had taken place based on rumours spread by some external quarters to serve narrow interests. In such cases, the police and law enforcement agencies needed to take immediate action to protect the life and properties of workers and employers. The BEF had never supported any illegal arrests or harassment; rather, it strongly believed that freedom of association could be exercised in a situation that was free from violence, pressure or threats. With regard to the registration of the BGIWF, he indicated that this matter was pending in court and a final verdict was awaited. Regarding the amendment of the Labour Act, the BEF had played a pioneering role in the formulation of various suggestions intended to make it more user-friendly and attain a win–win situation. It had volunteered to host a tripartite consultative council meeting in the beginning of 2013 to consider the amendment, which was now at the final stage and likely to be enacted by Parliament in June 2013. Furthermore, he understood that the Government had a plan to gradually implement freedom of association in EPZs and suggested that the Government should consider accelerating this process, keeping in conformity with international standards and investors’ needs. The BEF strongly felt that the Government should exercise its regulatory tools more efficiently to better facilitate the functioning of trade unions in the country, taking into account workers’ and employers’ welfare.

The Government member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Government members of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, expressed deep concern about the working conditions in Bangladesh, including freedom of association and collective bargaining. The current situation was alarming and she referred, in this context, to the tragic incident in a textile factory where many workers had lost their lives. Deploring the lack of opportunities for trade unions and workers to exercise their rights of freedom of association, the Governments’ interference in the administration of trade unions, as well as lengthy legal processes for the registration of trade unions, she questioned the willingness of the Government to comply with the Convention. At the same time, it was reassuring that the Government was about to take measures to ensure the protection of working conditions, decent wages and the right of freedom of association and collective bargaining. She called on the authorities to act expeditiously and decisively to bring the law and practice fully into compliance with Conventions Nos 87 and 98. Welcoming the steps taken so far by the authorities, she strongly encouraged them to continue working closely with the ILO to make sure that the amended legislation addressed the requests of the supervisory bodies. The adoption of amendments to the legislation was a crucial, but only first step, in the process, and subsequent measures to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of the new legislation were equally critical. Recognizing the significance of ready-made garments to the economy and their contribution to development, she emphasized that the Decent Work Agenda, including well-functioning occupational safety and health, was of utmost importance to secure a long-term and prosperous industry. The Nordic countries provided support for the Decent Work Agenda in Bangladesh, including in the areas of occupational safety and health and fundamental principles and rights at work. Welcoming the adoption of a joint statement by the tripartite partners with the ILO, on 4 May 2013, she expressed the hope that this would help to ensure workers’ rights and representation, but emphasized that this was first and foremost the responsibility of the Government. She urged the Government to cooperate fully and to respond in substance to the requests made by the Committee of Experts, and endorsed the efforts of the Office to help in this regard. It was only by engaging with the social partners that compliance could be secured in national law with ILO Conventions, among which Conventions Nos 87 and 98 were of particular importance. The setting up of an effective labour inspection was equally important. The authorities should work with the social partners, producers and buyers to take measures to ensure responsible supply chains, in line with ILO standards and corporate social responsibility principles. To this end, the Government was strongly advised to continue to fully avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO, including comments and advice made on all relevant draft legislation.

The Government member of Switzerland expressed her country’s support for the people of Bangladesh following one of the worst industrial disasters of recent years. The dramatic incidents that had occurred in textile factories showed how urgent it was to act and to work towards the effective application of occupational safety legislation in the country. The discussions under way on reforming labour law should lead to rapid reforms that would improve, in particular, protection for fundamental rights, such as freedom of association and collective bargaining, as well as occupational safety and health. The Government should promote freedom of association and ensure that its law and practice were fully in line with the Convention. It should also enter into genuine social dialogue, which was the only guarantee of the effective application of occupational safety and health legislation, as textile workers must be assured of safe and decent working conditions as a matter of urgency. In that regard, the Government and the social partners should agree to establish a better work programme as quickly as possible after Parliament’s adoption of the labour law reform, in accordance with international Conventions. The Office should ensure coordination between activities relating to respect for fundamental principles and rights at work, the national security plan and the agreement signed by multinationals in the textile sector.

The Worker member of Australia emphasized that, in the wake of the Tazreen and Rana Plaza disasters, much had rightly been heard about the responsibility of employers, and the global brands which sourced their garments through those employers, to ensure that workplaces were safe and that they complied with labour laws. However, as the fundamental ILO Conventions made clear, it was the responsibility of the Government to adopt, maintain and enforce laws that secured and protected the fundamental labour rights of its workers. At present, the Government of Bangladesh was failing to fulfil that responsibility, and in particular it was failing to meet its international obligations to ensuring the conformity of its labour laws with the Convention. The provisions of the Labour Act which gave rise to the greatest concern, included those excluding entire classes of workers from the rights and protections under the Act, or from key parts of the Act, such as the right to establish workers’ organizations and to organize. Other provisions in the Act imposed an excessively high minimum membership requirement for union registration. Restrictions were placed on anyone holding office in a union who was not employed or engaged in the establishment covered by that union. New provisions of the Act establishing a penalty of imprisonment for acts by workers or trade unions aimed at “intimidating” any person to become, continue or cease to be a trade union member or officer were excessively broad and risked capturing legitimate trade union activities. There were also a range of provisions which constituted unacceptable administrative interference in the rules, elections, affairs and activities of trade unions. There was a lack of clarity in the Act concerning the extent to which collective bargaining was permitted above the enterprise level and numerous restrictions were imposed on the right to strike which were inconsistent with the Convention. There were also many other restrictive provisions in other laws. She acknowledged that a process was under way in Bangladesh to reform a limited number of provisions in the Labour Act which had been facilitated by the ILO and had involved consultation with the social partners. However, the proposed package of amendments, as it currently stood, only directly addressed one of the many legal problems identified by the Committee of Experts, which continued to call for more extensive changes. The Government should bear in mind that the adoption and enforcement of laws fully guaranteeing and protecting freedom of association and collective bargaining was in the longer term interest and benefit of everyone. Trade union rights and freedoms were critical to ensuring that workers could join together to defend and pursue their rights, and therefore to ensuring that the workers were better placed to respond to the immense challenges that they faced within and outside their workplaces. They were also critical to the attainment of decent work in Bangladesh and to the country meeting its ambitious objective of moving from a low- to a middle-income country by 2021.

The Government member of the United States said that recent tragic events in Bangladesh that had resulted in immense loss of life, with over 1,000 people killed in the Rana Plaza building collapse in late April and over 100 in the Tazreen factory fire in November 2012, served to re‑emphasize the importance of discussing the application of the Convention by Bangladesh. Sadly, the link between worker safety and health and the right to freedom of association had never been clearer. Workers who could organize robust unions were better able to advocate adequate working conditions, including workplace safety. Consequently, the prevention of future tragedies would require improved guarantees of a stronger voice and role for workers and the protection of freedom of association, the right to organize and collective bargaining. Her country retained long-standing and serious concerns relating to workers’ rights and working conditions in Bangladesh. A petition filed by the American Federation of Labour and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) under the Generalized System of Preferences Act remained under review and a decision on how to proceed would be taken soon. The recent tragedies demonstrated the need for more urgent and coordinated action among all stakeholders, and especially the Government, to address those concerns by improving legal protections and the good governance necessary to enforce their implementation. The highest priorities were the enactment of robust amendments to the Labour Act, beyond those presently under consideration, alongside improvements in union registration procedures and the improved enforcement of laws and regulations. The aim was to secure genuine and sustainable protection of the fundamental rights to freedom of association and to organize, as well as occupational safety and health, focusing on the ready-made garment sector and EPZs, but also more broadly throughout Bangladesh. She expressed appreciation of the positive statements by the Government following the recent workplace tragedies and welcomed its stated commitment to ensuring compliance with the Convention and promoting freedom of association in Bangladesh. However, it was now time to move from words to actions. She urged Bangladesh to take the measures recommended by the Committee of Experts to bring its law and practice into full conformity with the Convention and to make use of the expert advice and assistance of the ILO for that purpose.

The Worker member of the Philippines emphasized that the universal right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing was not observed in law or practice in Bangladesh. The experience of the Philippines demonstrated the exploitation faced by workers in EPZs, who often faced dismissal or discrimination for trade union activities, while employers could refuse to recognize unions or to negotiate, or might even set up their own company-dominated or “yellow” unions. Over the years, very many workers had lost their jobs, been harassed, beaten or arrested when attempting to exercise their fundamental right to freedom of association in EPZs. Some 360,000 workers were employed in the eight EPZs in Bangladesh. However, even as reforms were considered to the Labour Act, EPZ workers remained excluded and relegated to a separate law that prohibited them from establishing unions. The Government appeared to have promised investors to keep EPZs union free. Enacted nearly ten years previously in response to a Generalized System of Preference petition filed in the United States, the EWWAIRA, for the first time, established a legislative framework for the exercise of labour rights in EPZs. However, the Act fell well short of international standards. In place of unions, the Act currently provided for the establishment of “workers’ welfare associations”, on which the workers representatives were often handpicked or appointed by employers. The formation of many such associations had been at the initiative of the BEPZA, not the workers. There had been almost no progress on collective bargaining in EPZs, largely due to BEPZA’s position that workers could not bargain on working conditions above the minimum standards established in the Act and in BEPZA instructions, even though the law clearly established the full entitlement of workers to negotiate collectively over wages, hours and conditions of work. Many workers’ association leaders reported that they had been harassed, suspended, dismissed without cause and/or subject to other forms of retaliation. In one case, workers from the Ishwardi EPZ had held a demonstration in 2012 concerning serious violations of their rights, including harassment and discrepancies over wages and leave. Following the unrest, 291 workers, including the presidents of workers’ associations, had been dismissed. In negotiations with international buyers and the owner, the factories had agreed to reinstate the leaders and the other 289 workers and had sought BEPZA’s approval to remove them from an EPZ “blacklist”. However, BEPZA had refused permission to reinstate the workers on the grounds that there was no prior practice or any provision in BEPZA rules and regulations allowing for the reinstatement of a terminated worker. Most troubling, the communication from the owner confirmed the existence of a black list.

The Government member of Canada offered sincere condolences to the people of Bangladesh following the collapse of the Rana Plaza building. He emphasized that Canada remained concerned about dangerous working conditions in the garment sector in Bangladesh and expected all of its trading partners to ensure safe working conditions consistent with international standards. He applauded the recent ILO high-level mission to Bangladesh and the Office’s coordination efforts in the country. He urged the Government to implement in full the resulting plan of action and to work together for that purpose with the ILO, employers, workers and other stakeholders. He also urged the Government to take all the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into full conformity with the Convention, in accordance with the comments of the Committee of Experts. While noting the proposed amendments to the Labour Act, which had been submitted to Parliament, he observed with concern that they were not consistent with international standards. He emphasized that freedom of association was an essential element for the functioning of the labour system, such as enabling workers to protect themselves including through participation in occupational safety and health measures. He therefore hoped that the collective energy following the recent tragic industrial accidents would be sustained and would result in measurable progress on many fronts.

The Worker member of Italy said that it was not surprising that Bangladesh was receiving a high level of international attention concerning its poor working conditions, lack of health and safety, low wages, long working hours and repression of labour rights, particularly in the ready-made garment industry. The Rana Plaza disaster had shown once again the many situations of violation of basic human rights and fundamental labour standards. Nor was it the only deadly workplace tragedy, as around 600 workers in the garment sector had been killed by fires since 2005. Moreover, up to now no one had been brought to justice. Garment production represented 80 per cent of Bangladeshi manufacturing exports, employing around 3.5 million people, mostly women. The rapidly growing number of factories mainly produced for Western brands, through a supply chain that placed increasing pressure on rights and labour costs. The race to the bottom in search of the lowest wages made Bangladesh a very attractive country for many suppliers who considered trade unions a danger to their profits. Until now the Government had facilitated this easy area for exploitation to attract foreign investment. She added that for many years the situation in the garment industry in Bangladesh had been characterized by anti-union violence, harassment and arrests. With the collusion of the authorities, employers in the sector had filed complaints against workers, unions and non-governmental organizations in criminal courts. Those cases were very costly, making it extremely difficult for workers to defend themselves. They often dragged on indefinitely and carried heavier sentences than cases in labour courts, thereby serving to intimidate workers engaged in trade union activities. One of the best known cases was that of Aminul Islam, who had been detained by the National Security Intelligence in 2010, beaten severely and sustained a fractured leg. The circumstances of his detention and the attempt to elicit a confession pointed to a targeted campaign against organizations that endeavoured to organize workers in the garment sector. Shortly afterwards, Aminul Islam had been abducted, tortured and his body dumped by the roadside. Now, a year after his death, little progress had been made in identifying and prosecuting those responsible and there were many indications of the involvement of the intelligence agencies in his death. She urged Bangladesh to ensure the effective implementation of fundamental United Nations and ILO human rights and labour instruments. The Government could not give the appearance to the world of expressing sorrow at the loss of life suffered without taking immediate action to ensure that workers enjoyed the basic right of association and that factories across the country complied with international labour standards.

The Government member of India noted with satisfaction the initiative to amend the Labour Act and believed that the progress made towards the amendment of the Act constituted a positive step that would help to resolve the issue. His Government had consistently encouraged dialogue and cooperation between the ILO and member States with a view to resolving all outstanding issues. Member States could also provide support to Bangladesh in view of the efforts that were being made by the Government for the implementation of the Convention.

The Government representative thanked the social partners for their comments and expressed appreciation of constructive criticisms, which could lead to positive developments. His Government always adhered to the recommendations of the Conference Committee and had carefully noted the points made during the discussion. He added that it was imperative for Bangladesh to comply with the requirements of the Convention, which had been ratified in 1972, one year after the country’s independence. He reaffirmed that the Government was taking steps to address all the comments made by the Committee of Experts. Those included the amendment of the Labour Act through the inclusion of special provisions respecting the registration of trade unions to ensure that the situation was more comfortable for workers’ organizations. The amendments included the removal of the requirement to provide employers with lists of trade union members. The workers would undoubtedly benefit from the extension of collective bargaining. With regard to workers in EPZs, he recalled that they enjoyed a form of participation through welfare associations which, although not a substitute for trade unions, constituted a complementary mechanism to trade union action. It was to be hoped that they would be instrumental in the improvement of working conditions through improved social dialogue. The proposed amendments also included restrictions on the dismissal of workers during the process of the formation of trade unions. The amendments had been submitted to Parliament on 8 June. They were not yet in their final form and other suggestions could still be taken into account.

He emphasized the deep shock felt by the Government at the deaths in the Rana Plaza disaster. Special attempts had been made by all the respective services to rescue the victims, under high-level supervision, including the personal involvement of the Prime Minister. The Government had taken all the necessary steps for the criminal investigation of the Tazreen and Rana Plaza disasters. The criminal investigation of the Tazreen disaster had led to the arrest of some of those responsible, as well as the suspension of a number of inspectors. Following the Rana Plaza collapse, criminal charges had been brought against the owner of the building, the owners of the factory and the municipality. The owners of the building and the factory had been placed under arrest and the Department of Factories and Inspection had filed a case. The national occupational safety and health policy was in the final stages of preparation. He added that 22 unions had been registered during the first five months of 2013. The action taken in response to the recent tragedies in the garment sector included the recruitment of 800 additional inspectors by the Department of Factories and Inspection. The Deputy Director-General of the ILO had visited the country following the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory and had held discussions with the various stakeholders, including the Prime Minister. A national tripartite plan of action on constructions had been adopted, which included an assessment of factories in the ready-made garments sector using a high technology scanner. With regard to the case of Aminul Islam, he noted that the criminal investigation had recently identified two principal suspects. In conclusion, he expressed the willingness of the Government to enter into dialogue with all the concerned stakeholders, development partners and other interested parties. The issues raised concerning the rights of workers and their safety were of great importance, not only in the ready-made garment sector, but also in such other important export sectors as shipbuilding and machinery production. The constructive suggestions and criticisms made by the Employer and Worker members, as well as the Government members, were to be welcomed. Through the amendments that were before Parliament it was hoped to address all the comments of the Committee of Experts. Everyone was working towards the common goal of national development, which would be for the benefit of all citizens.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative for his responses to the statements made by various members of the Committee during the discussion. They welcomed the recognition by the Government of the need to change the national law to bring it into full compliance with the Convention and the commitment expressed to the principles of freedom of association. The Government should build on the steps that had already been taken to achieve full conformity with the Convention and supply a report on the steps taken this year to the Committee of Experts so that it could assess the progress made and consider any further measures that would need to be adopted. The Employer members therefore encouraged the Government to ensure that the Labour Act was in full conformity with the Convention and to accept the technical assistance offered. They also encouraged it to continue and strengthen social dialogue so that the social partners could be involved in bringing national law and practice into conformity with the Convention.

The Worker members recalled that the Committee of Experts had called on the Government to carry out investigations into the serious allegations made, including murder, with a view to punishing those responsible. They therefore deeply regretted that the Government had taken little action in that respect and urged it immediately to investigate, arrest and prosecute those responsible for such crimes, and particularly the murder of Aminul Islam. The Committee of Experts had also repeatedly commented on the numerous flaws in the Labour Act, the EWWAIRA and the Industrial Relations Rules. Although the Government had made no effort to ensure that workers in EPZs had the right to organize into trade unions and were able to bargain collectively in practice, the offer to extend the provisions of the Labour Act to EPZ workers was to be welcomed. However, the Worker members were bound to express disappointment at the low level of the Government’s ambition to address the many issues raised concerning the Labour Act. They urged Parliament not to rush through the amendments as they currently stood, but to work with the ILO to ensure their compliance with the observations of the Committee of Experts. The ILO should intensify existing efforts in that respect.

The Worker members added that the recent registration of trade unions appeared to depend entirely on the will of the Government. For years, it had refused to register new unions in many sectors, including the garment sector, and there was little to suggest that it would continue their registration once the spotlight began to dim. Moreover, they expressed concern at the continued defence of intervention in union affairs in the closing statement by the Government representative. They emphasized that one of the best ways to avoid another industrial disaster in Bangladesh was to ensure that workers could exercise their rights guaranteed by the Convention. They therefore expressed their appreciation to the international brands that had signed, with the global unions, the international accord on fire and building safety, which recognized the importance of trade union action in fire and building safety. They called on the ILO to intervene immediately with the Government to ensure that the labour legislation currently before Parliament was in compliance with the observations of the Committee of Experts, as there was no reason why those observations could not be addressed in full. The ILO should significantly increase its capacity for technical cooperation at the Dhaka Office in relation to freedom of association and collective bargaining including, but not limited to, the garment sector. The ILO and the relevant international organizations should work to ensure that those responsible for the murder of trade unionists were arrested and prosecuted. The Government should be requested to provide a report this year on compliance with its obligations under the Convention. Finally, the ILO Dhaka Office should submit full reports to the October 2013 and March 2014 sessions of the Governing Body on its activities and on the situation in the country with regard to freedom of association and fire and building safety.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government and the discussion that ensued.

The Committee noted that the outstanding issues concerned: numerous allegations of arrests, harassment and detention of trade unionists and trade union leaders, notably in the garment sector, and refusals by the Registrar to register new trade unions; the need to ensure freedom of association rights to workers in export processing zones (EPZs); and numerous provisions of the 2006 Labour Act and the 1977 Industrial Relations Rules which were not in conformity with this fundamental Convention.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government, in particular that: the Bangladesh Garments and Industrial Sramik Federation (BGIWF) was functioning without any obstacle, pending the decision of the Labour Court before which the Government had filed a case for cancellation of its registration in 2008; and amendments to the 2006 Labour Act had been submitted to Parliament, following intensive tripartite consultations and advice from the ILO. The Committee further noted the information on: the number and function of workers’ welfare associations under the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Association and Industrial Relations Act of 2010 and the Government’s plans, when it expired in 2014, to bring EPZs under the purview of the Labour Act with ILO assistance; the intention to formulate new industrial relations rules following the adoption of the amendments to the Labour Act; and the technical cooperation provided by the ILO to ensure the further improvement of workers’ rights in EPZs.

The Committee did not address the right to strike in this case, as the employers do not agree that there is a right to strike recognized in Convention No. 87.

Stressing that a climate of full respect for freedom of association can make a significant contribution towards the effective protection of workers’ safety, the Committee highlighted the fundamental nature of this right. The Committee called on the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that workers and employers can exercise their freedom of association rights in a climate that is free from threats, pressure and intimidation of any kind and to carry out independent investigations into the allegations of arrest, harassment and violence against trade unionists. The Committee took note of the important commitments made by the Government to bring the law and practice into conformity with the Convention and urged the Government to ensure that the amendments to the Labour Act were adopted without delay and addressed the numerous points raised by the Committee of Experts concerning the Convention’s application. The Committee expected that these changes would further give rise to a simplified and effective registration process. Noting the Government’s statement that participation committees would not be used as a substitute for trade unions, but rather would facilitate trade union activities and collective bargaining, the Committee urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the amendments to the Labour Act did not undermine trade union rights. Encouraged by the Government’s statement concerning the lapsing of the EWWAIRA in 2014, the Committee invited the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance aimed at ensuring that workers in EPZs were fully guaranteed their rights under the Convention. The Committee requested the Government to provide a detailed report on the progress made with respect to all the above matters for examination by the Committee of Experts at its meeting this year. The Committee also invited the Director-General to submit to the Governing Body in 2014 a detailed report on the situation regarding respect for freedom of association in the country.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2008, Publication: 97th ILC session (2008)

A Government representative reaffirmed that his Government was fully committed to complying with various ILO Conventions, as well as to promoting labour union activities and freedom of association in Bangladesh. His Government took seriously into account any allegations of the violation of ILO Conventions and had looked into the allegations raised very carefully. He recalled in this respect that his country had ratified a total of 33 ILO Conventions, including seven fundamental Conventions.

He recalled that the Labour Law 2006 had been enacted after protracted consultations with stakeholders over a period of 14 years. The Labour Law fostered trade union activities, and he noted in this connection that various trade unions had held elections in recent months and that permissions for the right to organize were being granted to labour union activists. Nevertheless, some parties still felt that the Labour Law 2006 needed improving.

He also noted that there had been cases when non-workers had attempted to foment unrest and vandalize small businesses. He recalled that the Government was responsible for maintaining public order and affirmed that the law enforcement agencies had shown great restraint in such circumstances. The action taken by the law enforcement agencies had been in accordance with the law of the land under the direct supervision of judicial magistrates. Such action was not intended to harass trade union leaders or prevent them from pursuing legitimate union activities. Although the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) had referred to a few cases, he emphasized that they were isolated instances which did not establish a pattern of violations. As a preventive measure, the Government had established a Task Force on Labour Welfare with the participation of worker representatives and a Crisis Management Committee headed by a senior official of the Ministry of Labour and Employment.

Turning to the specific allegations contained in the report of the Committee of Experts, he affirmed that none of the people mentioned were still in custody and that all of them had been released on bail. The Government was not actively pursuing their cases. He added that there were over 5,000 factories in the country with 2.5 million workers and that it was not easy to maintain law and order in all of the factories. The Government was committed to ensuring law and order in factories with the utmost restraint. However, certain non-workers took advantage of the situation, and in certain cases took refuge in trade union offices. Extra care was taken in enforcing the law in such cases. For example, the 250 garment workers detained in 2006 had all been released and their cases were not being pursued.

With reference to export processing zones (EPZs), he recalled that they had been in existence for the past two decades with a view to promoting foreign direct investment in the country. There were over 250 factories in EPZs and their owners were committed to establishing fully fledged trade unions in their factories by 2010 in accordance with the EPZ Workers' Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2004. In the meantime, workers' associations had been established in all factories in EPZs as from November 2006 to look after the welfare of workers. There were presently 177 elected workers' representation and welfare committees in EPZs. The wages and other benefits enjoyed by workers were significantly higher in EPZs than elsewhere in the country, and laws and regulations on trade union activities in EPZs were constantly being improved.

He also described the activities undertaken by the Government to promote freedom of association and decent work conditions. He indicated that a policy was being finalized in consultation with worker representatives and NGOs for the elimination of child labour, with a view to ensuring workplaces free of child labour. Several projects were being undertaken, including one time-bound ILO project which was in its second phase and was aimed at removing 45,000 child labourers from hazardous work in eight major cities. Another Government project involving multiple stakeholders was intended to remove 30,000 children from hazardous work, provide them with non-formal education and skills training and offer their parents microcredit to secure their livelihoods. With ILO assistance, guidelines had been developed for shipbreaking workers and training was provided to them on such matters as occupational safety and health. A project was also being implemented to educate tea estate workers with a view to helping them avoid social violence and infection with sexually transmissible diseases. He added that minimum wage provisions had been announced in the ready-made garment sector and in 35 other sectors. Moreover, the minimum wage had achieved a 98 per cent implementation rate in the ready-made garment sector.

With regard to the Tripartite Consultation Committee, he indicated that it was a very effective body with 60 members and that the Government was committed to making it more representative. He referred in this respect to a recent meeting with representative trade union leaders at which decisions had been taken to facilitate more vigorous trade union activities and to make the Tripartite Consultation Committee more representative by co-opting new members.

In conclusion, he noted that the caretaker Government was preparing for the holding of elections in December 2008 and was relaxing the measures respecting trade union activities. Efforts were being made to promote corporate social responsibility so that employers felt obliged to support the welfare of workers, and the conditions of workers were being monitored by the Factories and Establishments Inspectorate.

The Employer members recalled that the Committee had been dealing with the issue of freedom of association in Bangladesh since 1983. The last discussions had been held in 1997 and 1999. The General Survey of 1994 on Convention No. 87 had emphasized that the legislation in Bangladesh was not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee had repeatedly requested the Government to bring the country's legislation into conformity with the requirements of Convention No. 87, as had the Committee of Experts, and to remove the restrictions on freedom of association in law and practice.

The Government had repeatedly referred to work on the legislation in various legislative commissions, but so far without visible results. The first paragraph of the observation of the Committee of Experts showed optimism and hope that after many years, improvements would now materialize. The new Labour Law 2006, had been enacted, which had superseded the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The Committee of Experts had analysed the new Law in detail as far as freedom of association was concerned. The Employer members were bound to express great disappointment with the results of the analysis. Based on this analysis, they were under the impression that all provisions criticized in previous years by the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts had once again been incorporated into the new Labour Law. For example, managers and workers in the public administration continued to be excluded from the right to establish workers' organizations, in the same way as many other groups of workers, such as casual workers. Certain measures taken by trade unions to find new members were qualified as "intimidating", and therefore inadmissible. The minimum membership requirement for the registration of a trade union was still 30 per cent of all the workers in an enterprise. It was prohibited to be a member of multiple trade unions and violations of this prohibition were sanctioned with detention. With regard to the point concerning restrictions on the right to strike raised by the Committee of Experts, the Employer members referred to their usual position on this subject. The Employer members were not able to relate to the fact that the experts paid so much attention to a matter which was not regulated in Convention No. 87.

The Employer members had referred to only a few of the points raised by the Committee of Experts. Nevertheless, they wondered whether the Government had totally misunderstood or simply ignored the requests by both the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts to bring the legislation into line with the Convention. Against the background of the comments made by the Government representative, the Employer members welcomed that he accepted the fact that the new Labour Code had to be amended once again.

The Employer members also expressed concern at the developments in practice in the country, such as the multiple detentions of trade unionists, especially trade union leaders, in the context of demonstrations, and the punishments imposed on them. The Government had taken the position that in the course of demonstrations, public law and order needed to be maintained. This, however, could not justify all the measures against trade unionists, as described by the Committee of Experts. Regarding the implementation of the Convention in practice, the Employer members agreed with the Committee of Experts that workers' and employers' organizations could only exercise their rights in conditions free from threats, pressure and intimidation of any kind. In situations such as those described in the observation, a targeted strategy of de-escalation might be necessary.

The third issue indicated by the Committee of Experts was freedom of association of workers in EPZs. In EPZs, a multitude of complex regulations existed which, in part, set insurmountable obstacles to the establishment of workers' organizations. The Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee had repeatedly requested the Government to ensure the implementation of the Convention in EPZs as well.

Finally, the Employer members referred to the question of the government official responsible for trade union registration who still possessed far-reaching powers over access to and the supervision of trade union offices. This point remained unclear.

The Employer members urged the Government to report in detail whether, in addition to the points already raised in relation to the Labour Law, there were any other provisions in the law which might be in accordance with the Convention. Otherwise, the new Labour Law would need to be amended as soon as possible. Moreover, the provisions for the establishment of workers' organizations in EPZs would have to be aligned with the Convention. In practice, freedom of association could only be developed and exercised in a climate free from threats. If there were still any obstacles, the Government should - 26 years after its ratification of the Convention - request the Office for technical assistance.

The Worker members recalled that the case of Bangladesh, concerning the application of Convention No. 98, had been discussed in 2006, when the Employer and Worker members, together with a significant number of Governments, had emphasized the extreme seriousness of the case. This had led to the Committee adopting harsh conclusions on the importance of ensuring suitable protection against acts of interference and guaranteeing the exercise of free and voluntary collective bargaining in the public and private sectors without legal obstacles, and on the important difficulties encountered by workers in the exercise of trade union rights in EPZs. On that occasion, the Committee had decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report.

This year, the case of Bangladesh was being examined in relation to the application of Convention No. 87, which was closely linked to Convention No. 98. The comments made by the Committee of Experts on the application of Convention No. 87 were discouraging. In August 2007, the ITUC had, among other information, made a series of grave allegations to the Office concerning violations of civil liberties relating to: the death of a trade unionist killed by the police; the particularly harsh repression by a rapid intervention army battalion; the arrest of strikers and demonstrators, and in particular of trade union leaders; harassment by the police against the American Center for International Labor Solidarity; the shots fired at Mohammed Firoz Mia, President of the Bangladeshi telephone union.

In its observation, the Committee of Experts recalled that freedom of association could only be exercised in a climate free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind. To a certain extent, the violence concerned trade union campaigns for the defence of workers' rights in EPZs, where the EPZ Workers' Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2004 was still in force and violated the fundamental rights of workers in several respects. The first of these violations concerned the prohibition of establishing trade unions in EPZs, which was due to be removed at the end of 2006. The situation still remained unchanged, however, or at least the Government had not provided any information on this subject.

It should be recalled that the Committee on Freedom of Association, on the basis of a complaint by the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF), had already adopted important conclusions on trade union rights in EPZs. The Committee on Freedom of Association had recalled that workers in EPZs, despite the economic arguments often put forward, should enjoy the trade union rights provided for by the freedom of association Conventions like other workers, without distinction whatsoever. The Committee on Freedom of Association had also considered that the blanket denial of the right to organize in EPZs amounted to a serious violation of the principles of freedom of association, and particularly Article 2 of Convention No. 87, which guaranteed all workers the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. With a view to confirming the legal framework of the Convention, the Committee on Freedom of Association had formulated 15 concrete recommendations.

In its observation, the Committee of Experts also noted serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention. In the same way as the Committee of Experts, the Worker members observed that the new Labour Law, which replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance in 2006, did not contain any improvement. On the contrary, in certain regards it had introduced new restrictions: the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right to organize; the exclusion of a series of sectors; the restriction of membership in trade unions and the participation in trade union elections only to those workers who were employed in the establishment concerned; the sanctions envisaged for certain methods of recruiting union members; the strict criteria of representativeness; the prohibition on unregistered unions from collecting funds; and several restrictions on the right to strike. The Worker members shared the deep concern expressed by the Committee of Experts in its observation and the urgent call by the Committee of Experts to bring an end to the serious violations of trade union rights and the denial of the fundamental rights of workers in EPZs and elsewhere.

The Committee of Experts had made a large number of comments since 1989 on the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 by Bangladesh and the Conference Committee had adopted conclusions on several occasions, drawing attention in particular to the problems in EPZs. Over the same period, the Committee on Freedom of As- sociation had also formulated several recommendations. It could therefore be concluded that this was a case of con- tinued failure to apply the freedom of association Conventions.

If the case was on the list, it was also due to the developments in the situation at the national level, which could be classified as extremely serious. Those who had hoped that the situation would improve after the installation of the new caretaker Government had been mistaken. On the contrary, the situation had deteriorated. Trade union activity had become almost impossible. Trade union secretariats had closed down. Strikes and demonstrations were prohibited. Trade union leaders were arrested or intimidated by criminal prosecutions, which were often totally unjustified. Trade union activists in enterprises were obliged to resign and were under physical threat. New unions could not register. Moreover, the national press reported that the police had fired on workers in the garment industry who were demonstrating in favour of a readjustment of their purchasing power following the steep rise in the prices of basic foodstuffs, a claim that was clearly justified when the basic wage was no higher than US$25 a month. It should also be noted that the Govern- ment had prohibited unions from celebrating May Day.

In its observation, the Committee of Experts proposed substantial amendments to the legislation to bring it into conformity with Convention No. 87. However, over recent months, the workers had been faced by even more restrictive legislative proposals. The Government was clearly taking advantage of the state of emergency that the country had been in since January 2007 to engage in a heavy-handed repression of trade union rights. This not only gave rise to social problems, but also to economic difficulties, particularly for the garment industry. The employment of 2.5 million workers in these sectors was under serious threat because Western countries and enterprises were increasingly demanding respect for the fundamental rights of workers.

The Government member of Pakistan noted with satisfaction that several measures had been taken by the Government of Bangladesh to implement Convention No. 87. He was encouraged by the fact that permission for labour activities had been granted under the 2006 Labour Law, which fostered trade union activities. Several other measures, including the establishment of the Tripartite Consultative Committee and steps taken by the Ministry responsible for shipbreaking, were also a positive indication. He hoped that the new Government, which would take office after the elections to be held in December 2008, would take further steps and remove the prohibitions on trade union activities in EPZs and on membership of multiple trade unions.

The Worker member of Bangladesh said that, following confrontational politics in Bangladesh, the President, acting under the country's Constitution, had declared a state of emergency and formed a caretaker Government, which had taken office in January 2007. All political and trade union activities had subsequently been suspended. The application of Convention No. 87 had also been suspended, leaving trade union leaders unable to exercise their right to freedom of association. The Government had undertaken some reforms with a view to holding free and fair parliamentary elections, which were scheduled for December 2008. The Tripartite Consultative Committee had been formed to discuss, negotiate and find solutions to labour issues, and to develop a strategy to restore the application of Convention No. 87. Several high-level meetings had been held but, despite intense pressure on the Government, freedom of association had yet to be restored.

Meanwhile, as a result of sky-rocketing prices, the purchasing power of low-paid workers had been tremendously affected, resulting in demonstrations by workers and organizations in the garment sector to voice legitimate demands in defence of their wages and livelihood. After prolonged agitation by the labour movement in 2006, a tripartite memorandum of understanding had been signed with the previous Government, fulfilling the demands of the garment workers. Although its provisions had been implemented by some parts of the garment industry, the precarious situation of many companies had prevented its universal implementation. If the Government did not restore Convention No. 87, more agitation and demonstration would follow, despite the current state of emergency.

Unprecedented price rises had gravely affected the country's workers. The minimum wage had been fixed at US$25 per month, which was insufficient for even a single person to live on. In the light of price increases, wages needed to be reviewed and the minimum wage fixed at US$75 per month. Workers had also faced problems as a result of the absence of fundamental trade union rights, which jeopardized and severely hindered the exercise of human rights, as well as the application of Convention No. 87.

The Government had proposed the repeal of the Act on political parties, which contained a provision stating that all political parties had to include a labour organization. This had the effect of politicizing trade unions, and he therefore welcomed the Government's proposal. His organization was strongly in favour of establishing a non-partisan trade union movement in Bangladesh, an aim which was also being pursued and promoted by the ILO.

In 2006, during the last tenure of the previous Government, a number of labour laws had been enacted or amended to the great detriment of the trade union movement. It was now mandatory that, soon after receiving an application for union registration, the registration authority had to provide the employer concerned with a list of the union's proposed leaders. While few unions in fact sought registration, those who did found that the employer had dismissed all the proposed leaders and had them brutally beaten by hired thugs. Another provision stipulated that if the Director of Labour failed to conduct an election for any reason within the required period, the union currently serving as collective bargaining agent (CBA) would remain as such for an unlimited period, which violated the democratic rights of workers.

The caretaker Government had raised some points for discussion by the Tripartite Consultative Committee, including the requirement that there could be only one union in each establishment, that union offices should not be established within 200 yards of the enterprise concerned, and that anyone intending to run for election to any trade union office should first obtain training on trade unions. Trade union leaders had voiced strong opposition to such proposals at meetings of the Tripartite Consultative Committee, and Government representatives had said that they would not be enacted without trade union support. He hoped that the Government would keep its promise.

With regard to multinational enterprises, the speaker recalled that, within the tripartite system which had existed before the state of emergency, many companies had been reluctant to discuss matters relating to contract labour. Despite strong opposition from the unions, many companies were engaging contract workers, while at the same time implementing a "voluntary" retirement scheme on a compulsory basis. Freedom of association in EPZs had virtually disappeared although, following several meetings with the ILO and other bodies, the Government had eventually decided to allow the formation of consultative committees in the respective industries in EPZs. He expressed the hope that full freedom of association would be established in EPZs.

The speaker urged the ILO and the Committee of Experts to put pressure on the Government and employers to stop the current outrage, amend anti-worker laws and restore the application of Convention No. 87 in Bangladesh, in order to ensure a healthy and democratic trade union atmosphere.

An observer representing the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF) said that, in June 2006, the Conference Committee had requested the Government of Bangladesh to eliminate obstacles to trade union activities in EPZs, prevent interfer- ence in trade union affairs and set lower limits for trade union registration and recognition. Two years later, freedom of association had in reality been eliminated following the outlawing of trade union activity under the emergency regulations imposed in January 2007. For 17 months, trade unions had been prevented from organizing, meeting members and even holding statutory meetings for the renewal of the mandates of their leaders, and the Government was now proposing even higher thresholds for trade union recognition. As a direct result, worker exploitation had intensified and, in the absence of worker representation, near anarchy prevailed when tensions mounted because of the frequent late payment of wages, cheating on overtime pay, and the regular aggressions against workers.

For the past year and a half, every week had brought new reports of unrest arising from extreme exploitation. The newspapers today had run reports of 50,000 garment workers damaging 50 factories after one worker had been killed. The previous day had seen reports of hundreds of garment workers rioting and forcing closure of 20 factories because they were being paid below the minimum wage and cheated on overtime. This was what happened when workers' representation was repressed and workers went leaderless. Workers in EPZs had gone largely unrepresented during the 20 years of EPZs' existence. Repeated promises had been made to grant EPZ workers freedom of association, but those promises had been broken, and workers were as far away as ever from being able to combine and bargain freely. Suppression of workers' rights had resulted in a legal minimum wage of less than 80 cents a day, or US$22 per month, which was well below the United Nations "absolute poverty" level. Workers now spent 70 per cent of their wages on rice alone.

The Government itself admitted that only 51 per cent of garment companies met the minimum standards on wages and basic working conditions. Labour inspectors had reported 37,033 labour law violations in 2006 and 48,291 in 2007, but cases filed against errant companies had fallen from 5,684 in 2006 to only 428 in 2007 - and this at a time when the garment industry was booming. The garment sector expected exports of US$11 billion in 2008, with inward investment in EPZs predicted to top US$1 billion.

He appreciated the difficulties faced by the caretaker Government in rescuing Bangladesh from the political inaction and corruption of past decades, but the workers were not responsible for the situation, and yet they were being penalized through the denial of their rights, impoverishment and inhuman treatment. He cited numerous examples of detention and maltreatment of trade unionists and of abuse of workers, including coercion to work extremely long hours, leading to death in certain cases.

Not surprisingly, labour unrest had become widespread. Indeed, in February, a deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Labour and Employment had admitted that the "illtreatment of workers and wrong handling of issues" was one of the main reasons of labour unrest. The chief inspector of factories had agreed that agitation was natural when workers were not being paid their wages. But instead of promoting mature industrial relations through dialogue based on freedom of association and the right to bargain, the caretaker Government was acting to limit long-term worker empowerment, both inside and outside EPZs.

Appearing to act under pressure from investors in EPZs, as well as domestic industry, the Government was proposing Labour Code amendments outlawing trade union offices within 200 metres of factories; preventing anyone not trained by the Government from assuming trade union office; removing the need for labour court approval for the cancellation of trade union registration; and increasing from 30 to 50 per cent the percentage of members needed for trade union recognition. The proposals were in clear violation of Convention No. 87 and the conclusions of the Conference Committee.

Garment workers in Bangladesh, who were mainly women, should not be allowed to drop further into serfdom. The ILO could not let Bangladesh drive trade unions out of existence. The Conference Committee's report should include a special paragraph on Bangladesh demanding the full application of the principles of freedom of association, including in EPZs; the dropping of false charges against trade union leaders and activists and the cessation of campaigns of harassment against trade union activity; and the full application of the law in every factory. In addition, the ILO should fully investigate, through a high-level mission, the labour rights situation in Bangladesh with a view to offering technical assistance to redraft the Labour Law.

The Government representative of Bangladesh expressed appreciation of the comments made by certain speakers and wished to reply to some of the issues raised during the discussion of the case. As admitted by trade union leaders, it had been necessary for the caretaker Government to hold the political parties responsible for the role that they had played in the crisis affecting the country. In certain cases, trade union leaders had been involved in that crisis and would therefore also be tried for any crimes committed. However, he emphasized that due process was being followed and that any trials would be for committing crimes and not for running trade union activities. He added that the caretaker Government had entered into discussions with the political parties, and more recently with trade unions with a view to broadening the consultation process. He recalled that elections would be held in 2008 and that the newly elected Government would undoubtedly withdraw many of the measures that had been taken over the past months, including the withdrawal of measures suspending the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98. He further recalled that the Labour Law of 2006, which had been adopted after a consultation process lasting 14 years, was already subject to a process of amendment to bring it into line with the Convention. Furthermore, in view of the need to give enterprises which invested in EPZs the necessary time, under the terms of the agreement signed with employers, trade union activities would resume fully in EPZs by 2010. He noted in this respect that, although workers enjoyed better conditions in EPZs, there had also been unrest at internationally managed EPZ factories. This was a cause of concern for the High-Level Crisis Management Committee, which included worker representatives. It should also be noted that inspectors covered EPZs and that labour regulations had been prepared and would start applying in such zones. With reference to minimum wages, he referred to the efforts to extend minimum wage provisions to other sectors, including tea plantation workers. In conclusion, he expressed the hope that Bangladesh would have a Parliament by 2009 which would be able to take measures to improve the implementation of ILO Conventions.

The Employer members urged the Government to make efforts to translate the provisions of the Convention into law as soon as possible. They also called on the Govern- ment to provide all the information requested by the Committee of Experts as soon as possible. The Employer members recognized that the Government had had recourse to the technical assistance of the Office in the past and requested the Government representative to specify whether the Government was prepared to request assistance on the problems highlighted by the Committee of Experts in the present case.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for his reply, as well as the Committee of Experts for its very detailed analysis of the application of Convention No. 87 in Bangladesh, both with regard to trade union rights in EPZs and the new Labour Law 2006. The reaction of the caretaker Government that responsibility for the allegations rested with previous Governments was foreseeable. However, it should be noted that the new Government had not made any effort to improve the situation. On the contrary, it was using the situation of the state of emergency to seriously jeopardize all trade union rights. Moreover, the legislation currently under consideration regulated trade union activity in an even more restrictive manner.

This was a case of serious and persistent failure to comply with the fundamental rights of workers for two decades, which was giving rise to a very explosive social condition and which also endangered much of the country's economy. For all these reasons, the Worker members fully endorsed the conclusions of the Committee of Experts concerning both EPZs and the revision of the Labour Law 2006. In addition, it was necessary, as a matter of urgency, to call on those responsible to put an end to the persistent attacks on freedom of association and trade union rights. The question arose as to whether the situation would change after the election of a new Government. In the light of past experience, doubts remained.

In 2006, the Committee had decided to include a special paragraph in its report for non-compliance with Convention No. 98. Following the refusal to receive technical assistance from the Office and also considering the close relationship between Conventions Nos 87 and 98, the serious allegations of failure to comply with Convention No. 87, and the deterioration of the situation since 2006, the Worker members requested the Government to accept a high-level technical assistance mission.

The Government representative of Bangladesh emphasized that a detailed report was being prepared on all the issues raised by the Committee of Experts so that it could be submitted in due course. With regard to the question of technical assistance, he believed that it would be more logical for the Government to assess where such assistance was needed before going on to request it. Moreover, he did not see the need to include the case in a special paragraph of the Committee's report. He recalled that certain technical missions had been received by the country a few years ago and that a tripartite consultation process was being developed. He therefore considered that it would be better to wait until the new Parliament was in place in 2009. The Government of Bangladesh was accordingly prepared to accept ILO assistance, but needed to work out the areas in which such assistance was needed. He emphasized that his Government was not refusing such assistance.

The Employer and Worker members, in light of the response of the Government representative, called for the present case to be set out in a special paragraph of the Committee's report.

Conclusions

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative and the debate that followed.

The Committee observed that the Committee of Experts' comment referred to serious violations of the Convention both in law and in practice, including: allegations of the raiding of the offices of the Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers' Union Federation (BIGUF) and the arrest of some of its officers; further arrests and police harassment of other unionists in the garment sector; arrests of hundreds of women trade unionists in 2004 whose case was still pending before the courts; and obstacles to the establishment of workers' organizations and associations in export processing zones (EPZs). It further observed with regret that many of the discrepancies between the Bangladesh Labour Law of 2006 and the provisions of the Convention concerned matters upon which the Committee of Experts had been requesting appropriate legislative action for some time now.

The Committee noted the Government's statement that the Labour Law of 2006 was adopted following a process of consultations with the social partners over many years. It further noted the Government's indication that it was in the process of reviewing the Labour Law, within the framework of the Tripartite Consultative Committee, in order to bring its provisions into conformity with the Convention in respect of any remaining loopholes. As regards the allegations of arrests and detentions, it noted the Government's statement that none of these persons remained in custody nor were the charges against them being actively pursued. The Commit- tee observed that in reply to its request concerning technical assistance, the Government stated that it would conduct a needs assessment and request such assistance if needed.

Expressing its concern over the apparent escalation of violence in the country, the Committee stressed that freedom of association could only be exercised in a climate that was free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of workers' organizations. The Committee requested the Government to provide full particulars to the Committee of Experts in respect of all the allegations of arrest, harassment and detention of trade unionists and trade union leaders and urged it to give adequate instructions to the law enforcement bodies so as to ensure that no person was arrested, detained or injured for having carried out legitimate trade union activities.

The Committee further urged the Government to take measures for the amendment of the Bangladesh Labour Law and the EPZ Workers' Associations and Industrial Relations Act so as to bring them into full conformity with the provisions of this fundamental Convention as requested by the Committee of Experts. The Committee emphasized in this regard the serious difficulties prevailing as regards the exercise of trade union rights in EPZs and the restrictions on the right to organize of a number of categories of workers under the Labour Law. It called upon the Government to ensure that all workers, including casual and subcontracted workers, were fully guaranteed the protection of the Convention. The Committee expressed the hope that the necessary concrete steps would be taken without delay and trusted that all additional measures would result in an improvement and not a deterioration of the trade union rights situation in the country. It requested the Government to provide a detailed report on all of the above matters for examination at the forthcoming session of the Committee of Experts.

The Committee decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1999, Publication: 87th ILC session (1999)

The Government has supplied the following information:

The Government of Bangladesh has already given detailed replies to the questions raised by the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and reiterates the replies already furnished to these Committees. However, as desired by the Committee of Experts, the Government would like to give the following further clarification and information:

Managerial and administrative function

The personnel employed for managerial and administrative functions are part of management and as such during collective bargaining, with the workers' representatives (CBA), such staff shall be obliged to negotiate on behalf of the employers. Because of this law and practice position, the inclusion of managerial and administrative staff in the definition of "worker" permitting them to join trade unions (workers' organizations) should be incompatible with tripartism. Article 38 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh guarantees the right to freedom of association to all citizens including the managerial and administrative staff, subject only to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of morality or public order. The substance of the right to associate covers any legitimate profession, occupation, trade, vocation or calling, and no restrictions foreseen under article 38 of the Constitution have so far been applied. Managerial and administrative staff come within the definition of "employer" under section 2(viii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969, and in that capacity they can form their trade union under section 2(vi) of the IRO as well. The Committee of Experts queries how, since article 38 of the Constitution applies to citizens only, non-citizens carrying out managerial or administrative functions are able to exercise the right of association. This is a complicated legal issue and needs to be examined in detail by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. The correct legal practice will be determined in consultation with this Ministry and will be transmitted to the Committee of Experts in due course. Information on the number and size of associations in the public and private sectors that have been established to further the occupational interests of those carrying out managerial and administrative functions is being collected and will be sent to the Committee of Experts in due course.

About the exclusion of the government servants and the workers of the Security Printing Press from trade unions, it is stated that all such matters are still under examination by the Labour Code Review Committee, a tripartite body which has been given the responsibility to review the draft Comprehensive Labour Code prepared by the National Labour Laws Reforms Commission. The Review Committee is working regularly, and its latest meeting was held on 4 March 1999. The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has remarked that the Government has been referring to the making of the new Comprehensive Labour Code for a number of years. The Government hopes that the Committee appreciates that the proposed Labour Code will compile 44 labour laws into one comprehensive code and as such it is a gigantic task. About the exclusion of the staff of the Security Printing Press from trade unions, it is further said that they are engaged in confidential work and allowing them to form trade unions presents grave risks. Certain provisions in the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1979, which require that government servants shall be obliged to receive prior permission from the authorities to issue publications on matters other than culture, sports, development works and scientific matters are also receiving the attention of the Labour Code Review Committee. In addition, the matter needs to be and will be examined by the Ministry of Establishment which is the competent authority to decide matters affecting the rights and privileges of government servants. The outcome of all such examination will be forwarded to the Committee of Experts in due course.

Restrictions regarding holding trade union office

The Committee of Experts has observed that section 7-A(I)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969, prevents persons who are not current or former employees of an establishment or group of establishments during the previous year from becoming members or officers of a trade union in an establishment or group of establishments. It also noted that section 3 of Act No. 22 of 1990, which provides that a worker dismissed for misconduct shall not be entitled to become an officer of a trade union, entails the risk of interference by the employer through the dismissal of trade union members or leaders for exercising legitimate trade union activities. The Committee has urged the Government to take measures to amend the provisions to bring them into conformity with the Convention. The Committee is informed that the employer cannot dismiss a worker in an arbitrary manner without giving him an opportunity to show cause and without being heard. The IRO, 1969, does not give the employer any chance of arbitrary interference. Any dismissal of a worker for trade union activities, under section 15 of the IRO, 1969, would be an unfair labour practice and a punishable offence for the employer. Besides, an aggrieved worker can also have recourse to judicial redress in the labour court. The Government is of the opinion that the workers have full freedom to elect their representatives and consequently no amendment to the aforesaid legislative provisions is required. The Committee of Experts is urged to appreciate that there is no contradiction between the present Bangladesh law and the Convention. The Committee is also informed that this matter, too, will be placed before the Labour Code Review Committee for examination in the true spirit of tripartism.

Excessive external supervision

The Committee has expressed the view that there does not appear to be any limit on the powers of the Registrar of Trade Unions under Rule 10 of the Industrial Relation Rules, 1977, to enter trade union premises and inspect documents, etc., and that this power is not subject to judicial review. Accordingly, the Committee has asked the Government to amend this provision to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Government again reiterates its replies that many times the general members of trade unions are deprived of their rights by union executives and it is to safeguard the interests of the general members of trade unions that Rule 10 was made. Besides, the abuse of authority and excesses, if any, of the Registrar of Trade Unions, are offences, and the aggrieved union can seek judicial redress in the appropriate court of law. The Registrar of Trade Unions has always used his powers of inspection with due discretion, and there has been no allegation about abuse of authority by the Registrar. While the rights of the trade unions to function freely are recognized, the necessity of regulating the trade union activities cannot be dispensed with in the interests of safeguarding the general workers' rights.

Registration requirements

The Committee has reiterated that sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which impose a minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments for initial and continued union registration is not in conformity with Article 2 of the Convention and, therefore, measures should be taken to rectify this. The Government reported that the 30 per cent membership requirement has checked the multiplicity of trade unions, whose mushroom growth is obviously counterproductive for workers. As such, amendment to the provisions would serve no useful purpose, the Government considers that the spirit of such provisions of the IRO conform to the Convention. The Committee of Experts has further pointed out that the Committee on Freedom of Association has raised other related concerns, namely, that there is no legal provision enabling the registration of a trade union on a nationwide basis and that, pursuant to a court decision, registration of unions comprising workers from different establishments owned by different employers is prohibited. The Committee would appreciate that such a judicial ruling given by the highest court, the Supreme Court, is binding upon the Government. However, such provisions of the IRO are also under examination by the Labour Code Review Committee.

Export processing zones

The Committee of Experts has held that the Export Processing Zones Authority Act, 1980, which has made the zones union free, is a serious violation of the important right to unionize and urged the Government to take measures without further delay to ensure that workers in Export Processing Zones (EPZs) are entitled to exercise all rights under the Convention.

The Committee of Experts is informed in this regard that although the workers employed in the Export Processing Zones cannot, at present, form trade unions, they have their associations and solve their grievances through direct dialogue. In fact, the workers in the EPZs enjoy much better service conditions and fringe benefits than workers in other areas. Experience has shown that the workers in EPZs never raised an issue against the employers in matters of wages, service conditions, etc. Union-free EPZs have attracted foreign direct investment which has resulted in considerable job creation (and employment), and workers are amongst the major beneficiaries. In view of the low level of development, EPZs in Bangladesh are an economic necessity. The principles set forth in the Declaration of Philadelphia are the basis of ILO Conventions and article V of this Declaration states, inter alia, that the manner of application of such principles must be determined with due regard to the stage of social and economic development reached by each people. Thus, in the economic interests of a least developed country like Bangladesh, union-free EPZs are considered essential for job creation and employment.

Restrictions on rights to strike

As regards the Committee's views on the restrictive provisions on strikes and its advice to the Government to amend the legislation to restrict the right to strike only in genuine crisis situations, the replies given on earlier occasions are reiterated. The Committee of Experts is also assured that trade union activities in the banking sector have not been suspended. In fact, no restrictions are imposed on legal strikes and the restrictions are applied on illegal strikes only. When strikes are prohibited by the Government, the Government must immediately refer the matter to the labour court for adjudication. Penalties, including imprisonment for illegal industrial action, can be imposed only after a judicial verdict is passed in accordance with law and, as such, the authorities cannot resort to any penal action arbitrarily.

Bangladesh's proneness to natural calamities is well known to the ILO. Even as late as 1998, the worst flood in the country caused massive damage to agricultural and physical infrastructures. Rehabilitation and reconstruction of the flood damage will take years. In such pressing circumstances, the restrictions on strikes and other forms of industrial action are quite justified and are in conformity with the justification permitted by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee will be provided with information about the reported rejection of several applications for registration by trade unions in the textile, metal and garment sectors, as requested.

Finally, the Government informs the Committee of Experts that all the points that it raised are being examined by the tripartite Labour Code Review Committee and the Committee of Experts will be informed of the decision in due course. The Government welcomes ILO technical assistance for advice as to how the Government can implement the Convention in its national situation.

In addition, a Government representative emphasized that Bangladesh was a pluralist and democratic country fully committed to the values of pluralism and democracy. In matters of the making and implementation of policy, it sought to operate in a system of total transparency, which was very much a part of its traditional cultural and political ethos. Although proud of this tradition, he was well aware that, like any other society, his country was not perfect. In the field covered by the Committee today, in Bangladesh, as elsewhere, much remained to be achieved. However, more than others, Bangladesh was cognizant of its deficiencies. It was also aware that some gaps still remained between elements of the existing legislation and the requirements of the Convention. It was, therefore, grateful to the Committee for having drawn attention to some of these issues, which it wished to address today with the utmost seriousness.

For that purpose, he informed the Committee that the Ministry of Labour had decided to establish a mechanism within the Ministry to thoroughly examine the issue and make recommendations to correct any discordance between the Convention and the existing legislation. He expressed confidence that this measure would take Bangladesh a long way forward towards the achievement of its goals. It had proven its good will by providing a point-by-point response to all the issues which had been raised by the Committee of Experts. He hoped that the answers would give satisfaction. However, if some of the members of the Committee were not satisfied by the information provided, that would not be due to any lack of intention or political commitment on the part of his country. It had to be appreciated that the constraints faced by the country were many and varied. However, he expressed the conviction that Bangladesh could achieve its desired goals, particularly since its authorities assigned the highest priority to democratizing every aspect of society. He then referred to the written information provided by the Government.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative for the information which he had provided. They noted that the Committee of Experts had been making comments on the case since 1983 and that the Conference Committee had discussed it in both 1995 and 1997. However, it still appeared that many of the elements of the case were the same as in 1995.

The Committee of Experts had raised several issues relating to various aspects of the labour law in the country. The first of these concerned the right of association of managerial and administrative personnel. The essential issue in this respect concerned the manner in which such categories of staff were determined. The Committee of Experts had also requested information on the situation in relation to foreign workers who were working at the managerial level. In the written information provided, the Government indicated that the issue would be examined by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. The comments of the Committee of Experts had given the impression that there were limitations on the right to associate of such personnel and the Government should, therefore, be requested to provide precise information in this regard. The issue revolved around the application of article 38 of the Constitution, which contained certain restrictions. However, the Government had stated that none of these restrictions had so far been applied. Information was needed on the actual situation in this regard.

The second question concerned the exclusion of public servants and workers in the Security Printing Press from the right to establish trade unions. The Government continued to state that this matter was still being reviewed by the tripartite Labour Code Review Committee, which was a mechanism designed to propose corrections in the law. However, the Government had been making the same statement for some time. How long would it be necessary to wait? Did the Government intend to change the law and, if so, when? It had been referring to the work of the Labour Code Review Committee in this respect for at least five years.

The third issue concerned the restrictions placed on the holding of trade union office. The Committee of Experts was concerned in particular by the restrictions on the holding of trade union office by workers who had been dismissed for misconduct, which raised the possibility of the arbitrary dismissal of trade union members. It would be necessary for the Committee to be provided with information on the practical impact of this provision in terms of the number of cases of arbitrary dismissal of trade union leaders.

A fourth problem concerned the powers of supervision of trade unions of the Registrar of Trade Unions. The principal concern raised by the Committee of Experts in this regard was that there did not appear to be any limits on the powers of the Registrar to enter premises and inspect documents and that these powers were not subject to judicial review. Although the Government representative had referred to the possibility of obtaining judicial redress, this did not constitute a limit on the exercise of these powers in the sense referred to by the Committee of Experts.

With reference to the requirement that a trade union have a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments for its initial and continued registration, the Employer members stated that the percentage was set at an arbitrarily high level and certainly constituted an obstacle to union representation, in particular where there was no system of exclusive representation. Once again, the Government had stated that the matter was under review by the Labour Code Review Committee.

On the question of the restrictions placed on the establishment of unions in export processing zones (EPZs), the Committee of Experts had underlined that freedom of association was a fundamental right which could not be denied, even temporarily. Once again, amendments had been proposed by the National Labour Laws Reforms Commission, but the questions remained as to how long the process would take.

With reference to the issue of the right to strike in Bangladesh, the Employer members referred to their well-known position on the question. The problem was once again that, on the matters of concern to the Committee of Experts, no information had been provided on the practical impact of the policy adopted by the Government. The information available did not permit any picture to be formed of the extent to which the right to strike was restricted in the country.

The large number of issues involved in the case did not lead to any easy conclusions. A number of the issues were being examined by various review bodies, but no concrete proposals appeared to have been made. It was clear that the Government could not continue to hide behind these review bodies forever as an excuse for legislative change. Something, therefore, needed to be done. In view of the lack of information to provide a basis for evaluating the impact of national policies on freedom of association in the country, the Government should be urged to provide verifiable and concrete information on the issue under examination.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for the information he had provided to the Committee and assured him that the Worker members were fully aware of the challenges faced by his Government due to the low level of development of the country. However, they wished to remind him that the Convention established core human rights which applied equally to all countries, regardless of their level of development. Indeed, it was the long-held view of both the Worker members and the ILO as a whole that respect for freedom of association would contribute greatly to the development of Bangladesh, rather than posing an obstacle to it.

Having listened carefully to the statement of the Government representative, and despite his tone of sincerity, the Worker members were not convinced that any new information had been provided of which the Committee had not already been aware when the case had been discussed in both 1995 and 1997. Unfortunately, it appeared clear that none of the action promised by the Government in the past had materialized.

The tripartite National Labour Laws Reforms Commission referred to by the Government representative had been established in 1992. The Committee had been assured three years later in 1995 that the work of the above Commission was proceeding and in 1997 had expressed the hope that it would rapidly complete its work on revising the labour legislation and that the new Labour Code would take into account the numerous and repeated observations of the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee. But another two years had elapsed without any further progress. Moreover, the Committee had been informed that another mechanism would be created within the Ministry of Labour to make recommendations to bring the law into compliance with the Convention. The relationship between this new mechanism and the National Labour Law Reforms Commission was unclear and the Worker members requested additional information from the Government in this regard.

The Committee of Experts had confirmed the lack of progress and had once again strongly criticized several discrepancies between national legislation and Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. In particular, it had noted the denial of the right to organize for workers in EPZs, restrictions on the right of association of public servants, the absence of legislation granting the right to organize to persons carrying out managerial or administrative functions, and the requirement for unions to have a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the workers employed in the establishment in order to be registered. The Committee of Experts had also criticized the excessive external supervision by the authorities over the internal affairs of trade unions, as well as the requirement to be employed in an establishment or group of establishments in order to hold trade union office and the prohibition on workers who had been dismissed for misconduct from standing for trade union office. Further criticisms included the restrictions on the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes without interference by the public authorities and the impossibility to register a trade union on a nationwide basis or a union which was composed of workers from different establishments owned by different employers. In particular, the Committee of Experts had referred to the excessive restrictions on the right to strike. The Committee of Experts had been commenting for many years on this long list of serious violations.

With regard to the issue of excessive external supervision, the Worker members repudiated the Government's argument that the general members of trade unions were often deprived of their rights by union executives and that supervision was to safeguard their interests. The experience of many Worker members was that workers were normally very effective in controlling their leaders, provided that transparent and democratic trade union structures were in place. It was structures of this nature that the Government should be encouraging through its labour laws if it were truly serious about safeguarding workers against the abuse of power by union leaders.

The Worker members also found the comments made by the Government representative concerning EPZs to be troubling. The Government had insisted that it was in the economic interests of a least-developed country such as Bangladesh to have union-free EPZs for the purposes of job creation and attracting foreign direct investment. This statement was a blatant example of the downward pressure on labour standards produced by globalization when the rules governing the process were incomplete and did not address core labour standards. This was a matter of particular concern since a large and increasing segment of the manufacturing sector in Bangladesh, particularly in the textile and garment industry, was located in EPZs, which were multiplying rapidly throughout the country and employing hundreds of thousands of workers. The Committee on Freedom of Association had examined complaints of violations, particularly in the garment and textile sector, where trade unions were unable to obtain registration. Many of the factories in the sector were quite small and employed fewer than 100 workers. In addition to the absence of freedom of association in EPZs, the combination of the 30 per cent requirement for initial and continued registration as an enterprise trade union and the prohibition on organizing a union on a nationwide basis, or a union composed of workers from different establishments owned by different employers, effectively deprived much of the manufacturing sector of the right to freedom of association.

Another example of the downward pressure exerted by globalization on labour standards was the reports that the World Bank had urged the Government to take legislative measures to prevent bank workers organizing a trade union. Despite the assurances provided by the Government that trade union activities in the sector had not been suspended, there had been press reports that trade union activities in the Central Bank had been banned due to what the Government had termed excessive union activities. Problems had also been reported in other commercial banks, both private and public. The Worker members called on the Government representative to provide more up-to-date information on the matter.

The Committee of Experts had once again repeated the comments that it had been making for many years concerning the limitations on freedom of association in the public sector and had urged the Government to take the necessary measures without any further delay to ensure that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, were guaranteed the right to organize. Despite the request for the Government to indicate any progress made in this regard, the Worker members were not convinced that the Government was taking the recommendations of the Committee of Experts seriously.

Finally, with regard to the right to strike, the Worker members requested the Government representative to provide information on the number of legal economic strikes which took place in the country each year and on the number of occasions on which an employer had been punished for violating laws in relation to workers engaged in industrial actions, either legal or illegal. Such statistics would provide a clear indication in practice as to whether, as claimed by the Government representative, there were really no restrictions on legal strikes.

The Worker members recalled that Bangladesh had ratified the Convention 27 years ago. The lack of progress in its application in law and practice for so many years was deeply troubling, particularly in view of the indication provided once again today that the Government had no intention of applying the Convention in certain key areas which were not in conformity with its provisions. A credibility problem had now emerged in gauging the Government's true intentions. Unfortunately, its actions spoke louder that its words. In practice, freedom of association was restricted in the public sector, EPZs, much of the manufacturing sector and the services sector. These deep concerns should be stated in the Committee's conclusions in the strongest possible terms.

The Worker member of Japan recalled that the discrepancies between national law and the Convention noted by the Committee of Experts included the restrictions placed on the right of association of public servants. He emphasized in this respect that the Convention guaranteed the freedom of association of workers in both the public and private sectors, with the sole exceptions of such services as the army and the police. The Government had stated that the labour legislation was being reviewed, but the review in question had been going on for a number of years. No information had been provided as to whether this review process would include the principles of freedom of association in the public service. He urged the Government to complete the review as soon as possible, and to provide information on the specific aspects of freedom of association which needed to be guaranteed in law and practice.

He added that his trade union represented workers in the public service and that he had been dismayed to note that there had been no representative from Bangladesh at the recent Executive Committee meeting of Public Services International. The reason had been that the delegate in question had been unable to obtain an exit visa from Bangladesh. He, therefore, reminded the Government representative that the Convention guaranteed the right of affiliation to international organizations. This requirement of the Convention was clearly not being respected if trade union members were not permitted to participate in international meetings, which were of great importance to the workers' movement.

The Worker member of Pakistan, while appreciating the difficulties faced by the country and the efforts that were being made to promote democracy, drew the Government's attention to the need to apply the Convention in countries of all levels of development, since it contained principles which were the lifeblood of basic freedoms for all workers everywhere, including in EPZs. The country had undertaken the basic commitment to ratify the Convention and now needed to take the further step of implementing it fully. The Committee on Freedom of Association in a number of cases over the years had pointed to the gaps and contradictions between national law and practice and the principles of freedom of association. Although promises had been made that these shortcomings would be remedied and review bodies had been set up to examine the labour legislation, the same problems in relation to the application of the Convention continued to be listed by the Committee of Experts. Moreover, the Worker member of Japan had provided information which illustrated that the fundamental right of the affiliation of workers and employers to national and international organizations was not respected in practice. He, therefore, called upon the Government to take the necessary measures to give effect to its international obligations without delay.

A Worker member of Italy agreed that Bangladesh was a highly populated country, marked by economic difficulties and numerous natural catastrophes. However, the country had the possibility to go forward in development with respect to democracy. As made clear by the analyses and observations of the Committee of Experts, one of the pillars of democracy was the freedom of association. Out of 60 million workers in Bangladesh, 5 million were in the formal sector and, of these, 2 million were unionized but scarcely 20 per cent of these organizations at enterprise level were affiliated to registered, central national unions, authorized to bargain. A large part of the population did not have the right to organize and was thus excluded from collective bargaining: this section included public servants, tens of thousands of workers in export processing zones, all dependent workers in the informal sector and almost all workers in small and medium-sized enterprises. It was essential that the workers should be covered by a legislation which granted them the right to organize. This was essential for the stability and the democracy of the country. Bangladesh, which had ratified the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), should work towards this end by exercising tripartism.

In reply, the Government representative thanked the Worker and Employer members for pointing to a number of issues which were a cause of common concern. It was not possible to hide such problems in a modern technological world in which information could be exchanged so easily. His country was, therefore, being very frank in facing up to certain discrepancies between its law and practice and the Convention and was showing the political will to address the related problems. On a more personal note, he informed the Committee that associations of high-level qualified personnel were gradually emerging as major actors in the country.

He assured the members of the Committee that he had taken note of the issues which had been raised, including the delay in the review procedure. Unfortunately, it was not possible to indicate a time-frame for the work of revising the national labour legislation. However, when he returned to his country he would convey the concerns which had been expressed to the appropriate authorities, which would undoubtedly have the effect of speeding up the process. Finally, with regard to the right to strike, he noted that democratization had progressed very greatly over the past ten years and that the workers in Bangladesh did exercise the right to strike.

The Employer members, while appreciating the goodwill expressed by the Government representative, feared that such goodwill merely served to mask a situation in which no progress was being made at all. The message that he should take back to his Government was that the Committee was looking for concrete steps and real action in the process of reviewing the labour legislation. Information needed to be provided on the real situation in relation to freedom of association in the country. If information were not provided to show that progress was being made, the Committee might have to adopt a different attitude to the case in the future.

The Committee noted the written information and the statement made by the Government representative and the discussion which took place in the Committee. It recalled with great concern that this case had been discussed by this Committee in 1995 and 1997. The Committee felt obliged to express its profound regret that serious discrepancies between national legislation and practice on the one hand, and the requirements of the Convention on the other hand, continued to exist. Deeply concerned by the total lack of progress regarding the application of this Convention ratified more than 25 years ago, the Committee firmly urged the Government to adopt measures on the following points: the prohibition on the right to organize of workers in export processing zones; the suspension of trade union activities in different sectors; the high requirements for registration of trade unions; the restrictions in respect of the holding of trade union office; the external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions; the restrictions on the right of trade unions to formulate their programmes without interference on the part of the public authorities; and the restrictions on the right of association of public servants. The Committee strongly urged the Government to indicate in the very near future any substantial progress in the application of the Convention and to supply a detailed report to the Committee of Experts on the concrete measures taken to give full effect to the Convention in law and in practice. It encouraged the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO.

The Committee once again expressed the firm hope that the National Labour Laws Reforms Commission would very soon conclude its work on revising the labour legislation and the Labour Code taking into account all the observations of the Committee of Experts and this Committee.

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

A Government representative, referring to the observations made by the Committee of Experts, noted that freedom of association in Bangladesh was covered by the Constitution and trade union legislation, the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969. The trade union law covered only the organized sector, where between five and six million workers were employed. Other economic sectors were covered by the Constitutional provisions relating to freedom of association. Violations of this right could be submitted to the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, which was the highest judicial body in the country.

With reference to the right of association of persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions, he noted that the IRO allowed workers and employers to form trade unions without requesting prior authorization. Union membership was open to persons in factories, business, industries, shops and public sector corporations. Public servants in the Department of Telephone and Telegram and in the Department of Railways were also covered by the law. However, public servants in other government offices were not covered by the IRO. Moreover, persons in industrial and commercial establishments performing managerial and administrative functions could not join workers' trade unions. Such persons - who comprised approximately two per cent of the workforce - could form associations for the advancement of their rights and interests in accordance with Article 38 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, which gave every citizen the right to form an association or union subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of morality or public order. Persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions in the private sector therefore enjoyed the right of association.

On the question of the right of association of public servants, the speaker reiterated the view that the legislation of Bangladesh was in conformity with the requirements of the Convention. As stated in the Conference Committee in 1995, even though public servants were not covered by the IRO, they did have the right to form associations in order to advance their interests. Such associations held meetings, discussed the problems faced by their members and formulated demands for submission to the Government for negotiation. With regard to the exclusion of workers at the Security Printing Press and of public servants from the right to form trade unions, he maintained that the Constitution guaranteed their right to form associations to advance their causes.

The speaker noted that the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning restrictions on the range of persons who could hold office in trade unions had been answered by his Government in the Conference Committee in 1995. He reiterated that, except for workers dismissed for misconduct or convicted of the embezzlement of union funds, moral turpitude or unfair labour practice, every worker had the right to enjoy trade unions of their choice and to hold elected trade union office regardless of their age, sex or creed. Moreover, a worker dismissed for misconduct could seek redress against the management in a court of law. The admission of dismissed workers as either members or officers of trade unions might hinder normal trade union activities, as well as industrial peace and productivity, which might in turn frustrate the underlying purpose of trade unions and collective bargaining. In Bangladesh, dismissed workers were not elected to trade union office. However, section 7-A(1)(b) of the IRO promoted rather than restricted their right to choose their representatives.

In response to the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning external supervision, he stated that the IRO conferred certain quasi-judicial functions on the Registrar of Trade Unions. However, any act of the Registrar could be challenged in a court of law and the Registrar was not permitted by law to revoke the registration of a union without prior permission from the labour court. He did not agree with the observation made by the Committee of Experts that the procedure of supervision by the Registrar of trade union financial affairs should be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording guarantees of impartiality and objectivity, since any act of the Registrar could already be challenged in a court of law. Moreover, the constitution of a union at the time of its union's registration was always respected.

The Government representative added that the requirement that the membership of a trade union should consist of 30 per cent of the total number of workers concerned before it could be registered was necessary in view of the country's level of social, economic and political development. This measure helped to check the multiplicity of trade unions, which would affect adversely the interests of the workers. Under the existing provisions, up to three unions could be registered for each establishment. Moreover, the IRO included provisions governing the determination of collective bargaining agents. He did not consider that the 30 per cent requirement restricted the right of workers to organize. However, measures adapted to the situation might be taken in the near future. In this connection, he pointed out that Convention No. 87 did not address specifically the danger of a multiplicity of trade unions, but was concerned that workers should be free to establish organizations of their own choosing. If they formed too many organizations, they would weaken their position.

On the question of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones (EPZs), he stated that these workers were not deprived of their fundamental right of freedom of association as guaranteed under Article 38 of the Constitution. In the same way as other developing and less developing countries which were establishing EPZs for the purposes of economic development, Bangladesh had suspended the right to form trade unions in EPZs as a purely temporary measure under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. Indeed, workers in EPZs enjoyed better employment and working conditions, higher wages and very congenial labour management relations. The fact that no complaint had yet been received by the Government from any workers' association alleging that workers in EPZs had been deprived of their rights meant that they had accepted the reality of the situation. Any Convention was ratified with some flexibility to suit national conditions and EPZs were being developed in many other Asian countries. Economic development required the establishment of EPZs, but not at the cost of the social and economic welfare of workers. The Government was very much aware of its responsibility towards its citizens.

He added that the Government of Bangladesh had noted the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning restrictions on the right to strike. Although appreciating the observation of the Committee that it was mindful of the difficulties which might arise during an acute national crisis, he recalled that sections 28, 32(2), 32(4), 33(1), 57, 58 and 59 of the IRO had been examined by the National Labour Law Commission (NLLC), whose report was still under study by the Government. He added that the Government of Bangladesh would welcome the technical assistance of the ILO in any field related to the implementation of Convention No. 87.

The Workers' members deplored the fact that, despite the Government's statement in 1995, at the conclusion of which it had undertaken to provide the Committee of Experts with detailed information, little seemed to have been achieved on this subject. The seven questions raised by the Committee of Experts were not new and required the adoption of urgent measures by the Government to bring the situation into greater conformity with the principles of freedom of association. These matters had already been the subject of exhaustive discussion in 1995, in the same way that related problems concerning the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), had been addressed in 1994. In general, the Workers' members regretted that for many years the Committee of Experts had needed to make observations on important matters related to the fundamental principles of freedom of association. In 1994 and 1995, the Government of Bangladesh had referred to the discussions held in its tripartite national commission. It appeared that this body had submitted recommendations on several points, a number of which were contained in a Bill to amend the legislation, which had not yet been adopted. Most of the criticisms of the Committee of Experts in the case of Bangladesh concerned matters that needed to be respected by every country, irrespective of its level of social and economic development. These matters were also related to the campaign of the Director-General to promote the ratification and application of fundamental Conventions. The Workers' members were aware of the economic and social difficulties confronting Bangladesh.

Better collaboration between the public authorities and civil society, including the organizations of workers and employers, would contribute to combating poverty and social exclusion and could promote social justice and peace. Indeed, many of the problems relating to the application of the Convention had their roots in the tension between the public authorities and civil society in Bangladesh. With regard to the specific comments made by the Committee of Experts, the Workers' members regretted that the Government's report contained little relevant information on the right to organize of persons carrying out managerial or administrative functions, or of public servants. The Government referred laconically to the existence of two associations for public servants in the public sector and referred to other associations without mentioning them by name. Furthermore, the report did not contain information on the provisions guaranteeing the right to organize of managerial staff in the private sector. The Workers' members emphasized that this category of worker should be guaranteed the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, including the trade unions that covered other categories of workers. The concept of managerial functions needed to be defined precisely so as not to weaken the trade unions of other workers.

With regard to interference by the public authorities in the establishment and functioning of trade unions, they noted that the problems raised were of a serious nature and related to restrictions on the categories of persons who could hold trade union office, interference by the public authorities in the internal affairs of trade unions and excessive limitations on the establishment and operation of trade unions at the enterprise level.

With regard to external control, they regretted that the information provided to the Committee of Experts was insufficient to establish whether such control was limited to supervising the rules of trade unions and the application of the law, or whether such matters were subject to really impartial judicial control.

On the subject of the requirement for the membership of a trade union to include 30 per cent of the workers in an enterprise before it could be registered, they warned that this threshold raised serious problems in systems for the recognition of trade union organizations which were based in part or in whole on enterprise unions, with the risk that workers in small- and medium-sized enterprises would be excluded. They therefore emphasized the need to establish without delay procedures and provisions which promoted freedom of association, as set out in the Preamble to the ILO Constitution and in the Convention.

On the question of EPZs, they noted that the Government referred to the recommendations of the National Labour Law Commission (NLLC) and to a Bill and the fact that, anticipating certain amendments to the legislation, some workers appeared to be authorized to establish trade unions. Workers in EPZs and their organizations needed guarantees set out in specific legal provisions for the effective exercise of freedom of association. The protection of the rights of these workers was a major concern of national and international trade union movements and of the ILO, which had established a specific programme on this subject.

Furthermore, with regard to the right to strike, the procedures and provisions governing the exercise of the right to strike were such that, in practice, the very principle of the right to strike was jeopardized. They recalled the conclusions of the Conference Committee in 1995, which urged the Government to ensure that the procedures and provisions concerning strikes did not amount to a denial of this fundamental right, and they deplored the fact that the Government's response was confined to stating that it had noted the observations of the Committee of Experts. The powers of the Government to prohibit the right to strike, if it considered it contrary to the national interest, constituted a violation of the principles of freedom of association and were inadmissible in a democratic society. The national legislation reflected the gap between civil society and the public authorities. However, better collaboration between them could promote social peace and the emergence of a more stable industrial relations system.

In conclusion, the Workers' members called for the amendment as soon as possible of the Labour Code and other relevant laws to take into account all of the observations of the Committee of Experts and the recommendations of the national social partners. They urged the Government to provide detailed information to the Committee of Experts on all developments, and particularly on the work of the NLLC and any progress achieved in law and in practice. Finally, the Government should make as much use as possible of ILO technical assistance.

The Employers' members recalled that the application of Convention No. 87 by Bangladesh had been examined on three occasions during the 1990s by the Committee of Experts, and had been discussed by the Conference Committee in 1995. There were a number of important issues involved, which required individual examination.

With regard to the right of association of persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions in the public and private sectors, the important point was the manner in which these categories of persons were delimited. No specific information had been provided on this point by the Government representative. However, the Government's response to the comments of the Committee of Experts had made reference to two associations and the Committee of Experts in its comments had requested the Government to provide specific information on the number and size of any other such associations. The issue which arose in both the private and the public sector was that the persons in question might in practice be the representatives of employers. They could not therefore be members of unions at the same time, as they would then have to negotiate with themselves. The Government representative had stated that the category of persons concerned covered two per cent of all the workers involved, which appeared to be a reasonable number. Although those who were really managerial personnel could be excluded from the right to establish and join workers' unions, any who did not come into this category should be treated as normal workers. The Government should therefore be requested to provide further information on this point in an additional report.

With regard to the right of public servants to organize, the Employers' members noted that the draft Labour Code would appear to continue to deny this right to public servants and to restrict their right to issue publications. The Government representative had not provided very much information in this respect on whether it intended to change the proposed provisions.

On the subject of restrictions on the range of persons who could hold trade union office, the Employers' members noted that, among others, workers who were dismissed for misconduct could not hold such office. The Government representative had stated that this measure was designed to protect the activities of the trade unions. However, the Committee of Experts had pointed out that such legislation entailed a risk of interference by employers. The Committee of Experts had rightly requested the amendment of the relevant provisions to provide for greater flexibility in relation to the membership of trade unions and the holding of trade union office. What was required was a legal examination of the cases which had occurred in this respect, but the Committee of Experts had not requested more complete information on this point.

On the question of external supervision of the activities of trade unions, the Employers' members noted that the Registrar of Trade Unions enjoyed excessively broad powers, which included the right to examine many kinds of documents at any time, and not just on a periodical basis. In such cases there should be proper independent procedures to prevent any undue interference in the activities of trade unions. The Government representative had stated that such machinery existed. The Government should therefore be requested to provide additional information on the applicable provisions which determined and restricted the powers of the Registrar and provided for independent supervision of his activities.

With regard to the 30 per cent requirement, under which no trade union could be registered unless it had a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments concerned, the Employers' members noted that the status of trade unions could be withdrawn when membership fell below that level. This was an exaggerated restriction by the State which placed too great a restriction on freedom of association and prevented the creation of new trade union organizations. It was important to remember that most workers' organizations had started out with few members. Although the Convention did not contain specific provisions in this respect and it was for the State to set the necessary conditions, these conditions should not constitute obstacles to the development of new trade unions.

Turning to the question of export processing zones (EPZs), which existed in many countries, the Committee of Experts had reported that the NLLC had submitted a report on this subject which was being studied by the Government. This report, and a Bill on that matter, would be submitted to Parliament. Although the Government representative had not provided further details on the NLLC's report, he had claimed that workers in EPZs enjoyed better conditions of work than the rest of the country's workforce and were not unhappy with their situation. Although the Convention did not state that the same labour law had to apply throughout a country, or particularly in EPZs, it did require the observance of the principles of freedom of association on a nationwide basis.

Turning to the comments of the Committee of Experts on restrictions on the right to strike in Bangladesh, the Employers' members referred to their own position on this question and noted that there was no basis in the Convention for measuring the extent of any restrictions that were imposed on this right. The provisions of the Convention would be infringed where the right to strike was constrained to such an extent that it no longer existed. The Employers' members recalled that strikes could have serious repercussions on the national economy, particularly in view of the growing interdependence of the productive and service sectors. It was therefore relatively frequent for governments to establish a certain threshold for the proportion of the workers who needed to give prior approval to the calling of a strike in order to prevent disruption of the productive process. In this case, the level was set at three quarters of the workers concerned, which seemed reasonable. The Committee of Experts had also referred to the possibility of prohibiting a strike if it were considered prejudicial to the national interest or where it involved a public utility service. The Employers' members recognized that these expressions were not clear. However, the comments of the Committee of Experts were based on its narrow interpretation of the essential services. The Government should be requested to provide further information on the application of the relevant legal provisions in practice and the cases, and circumstances, in which these provisions had been invoked. However, this had not been done in the report of the Committee of Experts. The Employers' members recalled in this respect that it was the fundamental right of every State to determine the extent to which certain limits should be applied to the right to strike for the public good.

In view of the complexity and large number of issues involved, it was not possible to arrive at conclusions, in this case, easily. Further information should therefore be requested in the form of a written report that covered all of the questions raised in detail. The Government should also specify the areas in which change was seriously being contemplated so that these points could be taken up in future and the changes adopted could be evaluated.

The Workers' member of Burkina Faso recalled that, for many years, the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts had asked Bangladesh to modify its legislation and practice to conform fully to the principles of freedom of association. She regretted that, despite these appeals, numerous and grave violations of these principles had again been committed, including acts of violence against the members and leaders of trade unions. By way of example, she stated that the Independent Union of Textile Workers of Bangladesh and its members, the large majority of which were women, had been the target of acts of aggression on the part of the public authorities. In August 1995, the leaders of this union had filed a complaint with the investigating official, but it had not been received. Following the institution of judicial action in conjunction with the Association of Exporters of Bangladesh, the Dhaka headquarters of this union had been ransacked in November 1995 and the members had been subjected to violence. Furthermore, the members and leaders of a union of a textiles enterprise in Dhaka had been the target of threats and harassments by the public authorities throughout 1995 and 1996. In the month of June 1996, the competent authority had refused, for the second time, to officially register this union. The speaker noted with concern that, generally, when workers registered complaints with the competent public authorities, they were not listened to and did not get any cooperation in finding an acceptable solution for the problems they faced. She regretted that the Government's report did not provide any information on the measures taken in this regard since the last report examined by the Committee in 1995. Finally, concerning export processing zones, she stressed the importance of these workers, the great majority of which were women working in miserable conditions, benefitting from the right to organize without restrictions or discrimination of any kind. She highly doubted that the absence of complaints by these workers effectively signified that they did not have any complaints, as the Government had indicated. Finally, she earnestly requested the Government of Bangladesh to modify without delay its law and practice in order to bring them into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association, and in particular with the provisions of the Convention.

The Workers' member of the United States emphasized the serious nature of the case, which concerned many of the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, including the right of association of public servants, the denial of the right to organize in EPZs, restrictions on persons who could hold trade union office, interference by public authorities in the affairs of trade unions and excessive restrictions on the right to strike. He therefore regretted that the Government representative had said very little that was new since the Committee had last reviewed the case in 1995. With reference to the statement by the Workers' member of Burkina Faso concerning the continued violation of the Convention with regard to workers in the garment industry, he recalled that there were over 800,000 workers in the industry, approximately 80 per cent of whom were women. Many garment factories were located in EPZs, where trade unions were illegal. The Government representative had made no apologies for this fact and indeed appeared to be informing the Committee that the practice would continue. This matter would need to be followed very closely.

The speaker added that during the past few years there had been a courageous effort to organize independent unions in garment factories and to bring those workplace unions into a single industrial federation, the Bangladesh Independent Garment Union (BIGU), which was independent of any political party, employers and the Government. This attempt to organize an independent, democratic industrial federation from the ground up would, if successful, be of truly historic significance for Bangladeshi workers. However, up to now the Government had refused to legally recognize BIGU, in clear violation of the Convention. He noted that this effort to organize the workers had coincided with the negotiation of an agreement with the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) for the elimination of child labour in the garment industry. The ILO had played a role in bringing about the agreement and in its implementation. BIGU was an ardent supporter of the agreement and had established the first schools for the children rescued from the garment factories. However, there were many forces in Bangladesh endeavouring to ensure that BIGU's organizing effort would fail. Some of the many personal sacrifices made by the workers in this respect were recorded in the ICFTU 1997 Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights. In particular, he pointed out that the garment industry was a major exporter producing largely for well-known multinational companies based in the United States and other countries. This case brought to light the responsibilities, not only of the Bangladeshi Government and factory operators, but also of multinational enterprises to ensure that the fundamental human rights contained in ILO Conventions were respected. Any denial of this responsibility would only strengthen the growing forces that were opposed to the expansion of international trade, economic integration and globalization. Full implementation of the Convention by the Government, with the active support and assistance of multinational enterprises, would play an important role in resisting such protectionist forces and ensuring that these processes benefitted as many people as possible in Bangladesh and elsewhere, and not just the most privileged. Unfortunately, much still needed to be done in this respect, as shown by this case.

The Workers' member of India agreed that the case raised matters of serious concern. As a neighbour of Bangladesh, he received constant reports that trade union rights were not respected in that country. Although the Government representative had stated that trade unions could go to court to protect their rights, this was not always possible in practice. He referred to a case of the dismissal of workers in 1996, in which the workers concerned had endeavoured to take action through the courts. However, the trade union representatives who had assisted them had been told to leave their jobs, been beaten up and offered different jobs on condition that they did not go to court. It was therefore not true to say that workers and their representatives could obtain protection for their rights through the courts in Bangladesh.

Recalling the statement of the Government representative concerning the right of association of public servants, he warned that this statement raised the issue of the difference between trade unions and associations. The latter did not have the same rights as trade unions and it could not therefore be claimed that public servants in Bangladesh enjoyed the right to freedom of association. On the issue of the 30 per cent minimum requirement for membership of a trade union before it could be registered, he pointed out that this level was set much lower in most other countries. Although the Government representative claimed that the reason for the measure was to prevent a multiplicity of unions, its real objective was to raise obstacles to the establishment of trade unions in general. Moreover, the situation in EPZs in Bangladesh was also very serious. The message disseminated to multinational enterprises by the national authority responsible for promoting these zones emphasized the fact that the law prohibited the formation of trade unions. This was proof enough that the Government did not respect the right to freedom of association or collective bargaining in EPZs. Another anti-trade union measure that was not accepted by the trade unions of other countries was the broad powers of the Registrar to interfere with their activities through inspections of trade union offices, documents and staff.

On the question of the range of persons who could hold office in trade unions, he noted that workers could be dismissed for unfair labour practices, without such practices being specified in detail in the legislation. This gave the Government broad powers, for example, to dismiss trade union leaders when it so wished. Other serious constraints on freedom of association were the requirement that 75 per cent of the workers concerned needed to give their consent to a strike and the possibility of prohibiting strikes either which lasted more than 30 days or which were considered prejudicial to the national interest. These measures constituted serious constraints on trade union rights and gave the Government wide powers to prohibit strikes. For example, it had been possible for the Government to prevent a strike by telephone workers by claiming that they worked in an essential service.

Although the Prime Minister of the country had come out in favour of the adoption of changes in these matters, no concrete action had yet been taken. It was necessary to amend the legal provisions and for measures to be taken with the support of workers' organizations. A request should therefore be made to the Government to take the necessary measures to achieve progress in the application of all aspects of the Convention before the Conference Committee met again next year.

The Workers' member of Greece considered that this was an example among others where a ratification of a Convention was of doubtful value as it was forgotten in practice. The content of the Committee of Experts' observation highlighted a strange concern for workers, who were mature adults who should be allowed freely to organize themselves. The explanation according to which workers could be fired for misconduct should be further clarified, as it would be a cause for concern if the right to determine what constituted misconduct rested in the hands of employers or of a governmental institution and not in the hands of the judiciary. In any event, the workers were not so stupid as to elect dishonest leaders. This provision should therefore be repealed. As regards the requirement of a three-quarters consenting majority to declare a strike, it constituted a blatant example of interference. The economic situation was often invoked as a reason for not applying standards, while experience showed that no country could prosper without respecting them. If the Government really was intent on applying the Convention, it should undertake to do so and this Committee would then, next year, be able to take note of any progress made. The dialogue in this Committee should not only be diplomatic in nature, but should give a voice to the workers not present here and who were unable to make themselves heard in their own country.

The Workers' member of Italy was of the opinion that, in spite of the sparse responses provided by the Government, the seven points raised by the Committee of Experts bore witness to a general and persistent violation of freedom of association. The provisions affected the right of the unions freely to choose their leaders and allowed for unjustified forms of intervention by the authorities on trade union premises. A complaint concerning violation of freedom of association submitted by a union of textile workers had resulted in severe conclusions by the Committee on Freedom of Association in this respect. The 30 per cent requirement amounted, in practice, to a bar to recruitment of new trade union members. Furthermore, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, permitted the firing of trade union leaders. As regards the denial of the right to organize in export processing zones, it should be recalled that, in 1992, the Government undertook to cease this practice. As for the restrictions on the right to strike in essential services, they should be determined through tripartite negotiations and not in an authoritarian way. The elections held last year bore witness to the will of this country to progress towards democracy. No such progress was possible, however, in the absence of respect for fundamental rights. The first stages of the joint programme between textile workers, UNICEF and the ILO to abolish child labour were encouraging; perhaps a similar type of programme could be of assistance to overcoming the obstacles to freedom of association.

The Workers' member of Colombia expressed his concern regarding the lack of information provided by the Government representative, especially since hopes had been raised that the principles of freedom of association would be fully respected. Concerns had been raised regarding the interference of the Government in the internal affairs of trade unions, particularly in the case of workers dismissed on grounds of misconduct who were then prevented from holding office in trade unions. In certain countries being a trade union member in itself can lead to unjust dismissal. Freedom of association and the right to strike had to be guaranteed in export processing zones, as well as in the public sector. These rights had to be respected throughout the world, and especially in developing countries. Despite the observations formulated by the Committee of Experts, there had been little progress and repression continued. He could only hope that next year would bring about genuine progress concerning the respect of workers' rights.

The Workers' member of Pakistan, pointing out that a new Government which had come into power last year had committed itself to respecting freedom of association, called upon the Government representatives to adhere to Convention No. 87. It was not only the ratification of a Convention but its implementation in letter and spirit that mattered. First of all, trade union rights in export processing zones as well as in rural areas needed to be respected. Secondly, the restrictions on trade unions to elect their office-bearers needed to be abolished, since freedom of association dictated that trade unions elect their representatives in full freedom without interference from the Government. As a result, section 7-A(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO), needed to be repealed. Finally, the requirement under the IRO that no trade union may be registered unless it had a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the workforce meant that it would be difficult to organize workers in a large establishment, and therefore needed to be removed. He hoped that the Government would take up the offer of technical assistance of the Office.

The Employers' member of India indicated that labour laws in Bangladesh and India were similar. Thus, while the Trade Union Act in India merely required a membership of seven workers to form a union, persons carrying out managerial and supervisory functions preferred to form associations, and be registered under the Societies Act, in view of the nature of their functions. Therefore, in Bangladesh, the restrictions placed on them under the IRO were justified. Similarly, the restrictions on the range of persons who could hold trade union office were justified so that the internal trade union leadership could grow. The 30 per cent requirement under the IRO had to be maintained so as to avoid the proliferation of trade unions which were neither in the interest of the industry, nor the workers. Finally, the right to strike was not an absolute right and should be subject to the interests of the State. The type of overprotective pro-worker regulation promoted in discussions here was eroding employers' rights to manage their enterprises; he hoped that this Committee would have a balanced view and keep in mind the entire industrial relations scenario.

The Employers' members recalled that the seven points which were taken up by the Committee of Experts did not all have the same importance and that new information was required and that the necessary changes should be carried out.

The Committee noted the statement of the Government representative and the debate which had ensued. It observed that, for many years, important and numerous discrepancies, in particular in the export processing zones, existed between, on the one hand, the national legislation and practice and, on the other hand, the provisions of the Convention. The Committee expressed the hope that the National Labour Legislation Commission would rapidly conclude its work on revising the labour legislation and that the new Labour Code would take into account the numerous and repeated observations of the Committee of Experts and also those of the Conference Committee. It reminded the Government of the possibility of requesting technical assistance from the Office in this regard.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1995, Publication: 82nd ILC session (1995)

A Government representative stated that the Government of Bangladesh had replied to all the issues raised by the Committee of Experts last year and understood that the Committee of Experts had examined these replies as well as some further queries which appeared in this year's report. The Government had received a direct request and would attempt to reply by the required date. As to the observation made by the Committee of Experts, he noted that Bangladesh had a law allowing workers and employers to form trade unions without requesting prior authorization. Union membership was open to persons working in factories, businesses, industries, shops and public sector corporations. Public servants of the Department of Telephone and Telegraphs and the Department of Railways were also covered by this law. Public servants of other government offices were not covered by this Industrial Relations Ordinance.

The Committee of Experts had raised six objections, the first of which concerned persons performing managerial and administrative functions: they could not join workers' trade unions. These white-collar employees, comprising approximately 2 per cent of the workforce, could form associations for the advancement of their rights or interests. Due to their small numbers, they did not form associations in each establishment, but rather at the national level or along professional lines, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants or the Institute of Engineers. In this way, the guarantees provided under Article 2 of Convention No. 87 were exercised by persons in this professional category. He noted that the Committee of Experts had requested the Government to provide the legislation which allowed these groups of managerial staff to form their associations. The speaker confirmed that his Government would provide this information with its report in due time.

He then commented on the Committee of Experts' observations on freedom of association for public servants, who were excluded from the scope of the industrial relations law allowing workers and employers to form trade unions. There were, however, associations of different levels of cadres through which they promoted their own causes. The Bangladesh Civil Service Administration Association had the largest number of members, while another association existed for the non-cadres. Some staff, such as accountants and stenographers also had their own associations. These committees held meetings, discussed problems faced by members and formulated a charter of demands for submission to the Government for negotiation.

Recently, the speaker noted, the Government had been in contact with associations of public employees, both towards meeting demands and implementing government decisions regarding salaries and other benefits recommended in 1991. He then referred to the observation of the Committee of Experts concerning restrictions on eligibility for holding office in a trade union. Except for workers dismissed for misconduct or convicted of embezzlement of union funds, moral turpitude, or unfair labour practices, each worker was eligible to join a trade union of his choice and to hold elected office in the union, regardless of age, sex, caste, etc. The speaker noted that a worker dismissed for misconduct might seek revenge against the management. He considered that the admission of such dismissed workers, either as union members or officers, might hinder normal union activities as well as industrial peace and productivity. This might also defeat the very purpose of the union and of collective bargaining. In practice, in Bangladesh, dismissed workers were not elected to office in trade unions. The speaker considered that section 7-A(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, promoted rather than restricted the right of workers to choose their representatives.

In reply to the Committee of Experts' observations on external supervision, the speaker noted that, in Bangladesh, the Industrial Relations Ordinance conferred certain quasi-judicial functions on the Registrar of Trade Unions. Any act of the registrar could be challenged in a court of law. He further noted that the Registrar of Trade Unions was not allowed to revoke a union's registration without prior authorization from the labour court.

With regard to the 30 per cent requirement for initial or continued registration of a trade union, the speaker noted that the Committee of Experts had been informed on several occasions that this practice was necessary to check the multiplicity of trade unions in Bangladesh. Nevertheless, in an establishment meeting the 30 per cent requirement, up to three unions could be registered and there were provisions for determining a collective bargaining agent. The speaker considered that the multiple union registration provision brought the legislation into conformity with Convention No. 87.

The speaker then referred to the observation in which the Committee of Experts noted with regret that the law did not cover workers in the export processing zones. He noted that the National Labour Law Commission 1992 submitted a report on this question which was still being studied by the Government. Ultimately, this report would be submitted as a bill to Parliament.

The speaker concluded by mentioning that his Government would try to reply as accurately as possible to the points raised by the Committee of Experts this year.

The Employers' members stated that it was the first time that Convention No. 87 was being discussed in the case of Bangladesh and thanked the Government representative for having addressed directly the seven points raised by the Committee of Experts. They referred to the information contained in the report of the Committee of Experts concerning a review of labour legislation by a National Tripartite Commission, as well as the draft of a new Labour Code dealing with specific questions that had raised some doubts.

With reference to the seven points raised by the Experts they indicated that they continued to pose problems. As to persons carrying out managerial or administrative functions who were permitted to form their own associations, these persons were still subject to restrictions. Consequently, it was necessary to know whether this category of employees had, in reality, the possibility to freely form their own organizations. The Employers' members therefore hoped that the Government would provide detailed information in this regard in its report.

In addition, they requested that the Government indicate the specific restrictions on the rights of public servants to issue publications, as well as the extent of these restrictions in light of the comments of the Committee of Experts.

With respect to restrictions on the categories of persons who could hold office in trade unions, they believed that the text was too general and it was unacceptable that all dismissed workers were prevented from holding office.

In relation to excessive external supervision by the Registrar of Trade Unions to supervise trade union activities, they understood that the State would want to maintain some form of control such as supervision over the finances of trade unions. However, the general control should not be too broad. They requested further information on the legal recourse available to trade unions if such control had been too extensive.

In relation to the 30 per cent requirement, they noted that when workers wished to form a trade union organization in an establishment or in a group of enterprises, the Government believed that there was a danger of multiplicity of trade unions and this was the reason for the 30 per cent requirement. With regard to the risk of such proliferation, Convention No. 87 did not specifically address this issue but did provide that workers were free to set up organizations of their own choice. If workers formed too many organizations, they would weaken their own positions. The Employers' members wondered to what extent a State had the duty to protect workers from themselves. In a free society, such state protection should be strictly limited. The Government should review this issue and consider the recommendations made by the National Tripartite Commission in this regard.

As to export processing zones, they noted that the Government added very little to this issue and therefore it was necessary to wait for the information that it would provide in its report.

With regard to restrictions on the right to strike, which in the opinion of the Experts went beyond the envisaged situations and categories of workers, the Employers' members believed that the criterion of "essential services was too narrow". The State was responsible for the welfare of its citizens, and in developing countries, especially in difficult periods, a strike could cause unacceptable consequences even if the strike would not endanger life. For this reason a democratic State should assume its responsibilities and set the restrictions on the right to strike when essential services were jeopardized. Furthermore, Convention No. 87 did not contain any provisions in this regard.

Lastly, there were matters which needed careful thought and required legislative revision. For this reason, the Employers requested the Government to provide in its report detailed information on all of the points raised and stressed how important it was for the Office to provide Bangladesh with assistance.

The Workers' members emphasized that even if the Committee were examining the case of Bangladesh for the first time on the application of Convention No. 87, the Committee of Experts has been commenting on important points as to the limitations on trade union freedom in Bangladesh for quite a number of years. These were points that every country must respect, regardless of its degree of economic development.

The legislative review in progress which was given to a national tripartite committee along with the preparation of a new Labour Code undoubtedly marked the beginning of a positive change in attitude. Nevertheless, two major concerns were expressed. First of all, the effective implementation of the conclusions of the national tripartite committee should help to revise national legislation and practice as indicated in the remarks of the Experts. In this respect, there was a second concern as the Committee of Experts had taken note that while the new draft code satisfied some of its criticisms, it nevertheless included significant parts of the present code which the Experts had indicated, violate trade union freedom. In this respect, the comments of the Experts had been the same for quite some time.

The Workers' members then commented on the state of trade union freedom in Bangladesh, as described in the report of the Committee of Experts and in light of the information supplied by the Government representative. Concerning freedom of association for persons in managerial positions, they insisted on the necessity of guaranteeing that these categories of workers might enjoy and effectively exercise the right to form unions and to join the union of their choice, including unions of other categories of workers. Moreover, it was necessary, as the Committee of Experts had noted, that the concept of "managerial functions" be defined strictly in order to ensure that other unions were not weakened. As for the intervention of public authorities in the setting-up, creation and operation of unions, the Workers' members emphasized the risks of arbitrary supervision. Excessive limitation on the setting-up and maintaining of unions posed problems, especially in terms of organizational recognition based totally or for a large part on company unions in which workers of small and medium-sized businesses risked being excluded. They insisted on the need to adopt procedures and texts facilitating freedom of association.

As for export processing zones, the Workers' members stated that the guarantee of effective exercise of freedom of association was not assured and this constituted a major concern for the national and international union movement.

As for restrictions on the right to strike, the Workers' members felt, on reading the report of the Committee of Experts, that the procedures for exercising this right were such that, in practice, the very principle of the right to strike was called into question. They declared that it was unacceptable that the Government was able to ban strikes if it judged that the strike was contrary to the national interest or would harm the economy of the country. Fundamental rights should be guaranteed regardless of the political system and degree of economic development of a country. The concerns and the points of view expressed by the Committee of Experts on this point were shared by the Workers' members.

They requested that the Labour Code and other relevant legislation be reworked in order to take into account all of the comments of the Experts and the conclusions of this Committee, as the violations mentioned were significant and had very serious repercussions on the exercise of the fundamental rights of workers.

The Workers' members joined with the Employers' members in requesting that all information provided by the Government representative, as well as other additional information, be forwarded shortly for review by the Committee of Experts. They suggested that the Government call upon the assistance of the Office in order to settle the remaining problems.

The Workers' member of Japan believed this was a case of serious and complex restrictions on freedom of association. He agreed with the Committee of Experts' concern over the draft Labour Code which still apparently excluded a wide section of workers from the scope of the right to organize. Among those who were denied full freedom of association were public servants whose right to issue publications was subject to restrictions.

He pointed out the need for further information on measures the Government has envisaged to amend the Industrial Relations Rules which grant government officials excessive power - not subject to any judicial review - in supervising trade unions. He also requested more information on a union's right to appeal administrative decisions.

The speaker then focused on the denial of the right to organize in export processing zones (EPZs), in contravention of the Convention which guarantees freedom of association to all workers regardless of where they work. Citing an ILO survey, he noted that EPZs were an issue not only in Bangladesh but also in an increasing number of countries, particularly in Asia, where EPZs employed more than three-quarters of all workers. A market economy was acceptable as long as it respected human rights, trade union rights and fair rules of competition. This was not the case of export processing zones in general and in EPZs in Bangladesh in particular.

The Workers' member of the Netherlands drew attention to the fact that all of the questions discussed last year concerning the application of Convention No. 98 arose again this year in regard to the application of Convention No. 87. Consequently, this year the Committee of Experts had not raised any new issues.

Last year the Workers' group called for cautious optimism with regard to the proposed changes in the labour legislation and expressly requested that this year there be changes with respect to the external supervision of trade union affairs and export processing zones. Last year the Government expressed the hope that the problems would be solved in 1995. This year, however, the Government stated that it was in line with ILO standards and that the remaining queries were under review. The speaker believed that since the same problems continued, in essence, the Government was not willing to take concrete action to solve the problems. He asked for clarification on the existence of a tripartite labour committee headed by the Minister of Labour and Manpower and a parliamentary standing committee on labour matters which the Government referred to last year.

Noting that there had been no major changes in the legislation, he requested the Committee to address this insufficiency. He believed that the Workers' group wrongly expressed their cautious optimism and that the Employers' group was correct in stating that amending the relevant law would take time. He believed the Government had not been forthright last year, nor this year, and again referred to the available option of technical assistance to overcome difficulties in applying the Convention both in law and in practice.

The Government representative stated that he might have been misunderstood. His Government attached great importance to the observations of the Committee of Experts and intended to comply with its requests.

As concerned the Labour Code, he observed that it had not yet been passed by Parliament and there was, at present, just a recommendation by the National Law Commission to draft a Labour Code.

The Committee noted the observation of the Committee of Experts, the statements made by the Government representative and information provided on the application of the Convention, as well as the discussion that took place thereafter. The Committee observed that a tripartite National Labour Law Commission had begun to review the labour legislation. While welcoming this information, the Committee continued to be concerned with the situation both in law and in practice regarding trade union matters. The Committee urged the Government to adopt, at a very early date, the necessary measures to bring this legislation into conformity with the Convention. In particular, the Committee urged the Government to guarantee the right of managerial and administrative employees to organize, to assure judicial review of intervention by public authorities in unionization, to remove the restrictive provisions on registration of trade unions, and to ensure that modalities and procedures as regards strike action do not nullify this basic right. It also insisted on the necessity to apply the Convention in export processing zones. The Committee expressed the firm hope that it would be able to take note, at its next examination of the case, of substantial progress in the application of the Convention, if necessary, with the technical assistance of the ILO and asked the Government to furnish more detailed information on all these matters and report to the Committee of Experts.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report of 19 September 2023 on progress made in the implementation of the road map of actions to address all outstanding issues in the complaint pending under article 26 of the ILO Constitution concerning this Convention, among others. It also notes the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 349th Session (November 2023) in this regard, requesting the Government to report on further progress to its 350th Session (March 2024) and to defer the decision on further action to that session.

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 27 September 2023 and of the Trade Union Committee of International Labour Standards (TU-ILS) (a committee of the workers’ representatives from the National Coordination Committee for Workers’ Education (NCCWE) and IndustriALL Bangladesh Council (IBC)) transmitted by the Government with its report, as well as the Government’s comments thereon. Both the ITUC and the TU-ILS refer to matters addressed in this comment.

The Committee notes the observations of the Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF), which are incorporated in the Government’s report.

The Committee observes from the Government’s statement to the Governing Body, within the framework of the discussions on the article 26 proceedings, that the Parliament approved an amendment to the Bangladesh Labour Act (BLA) in November 2023.

Civil liberties. The Committee has been expressing deep concern at the allegations of violence and intimidation of workers for a number of years and has urged the Government to take all necessary measures to prevent such incidents in the future and ensure that, if they occur, they are properly investigated. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to review all the allegations of violence, harassment and intimidation reported by the TU-ILS. The Committee notes with regret that the Government does not elaborate on any concrete investigations undertaken into these incidents but simply reiterates that the Industrial Police maintain law and order, prevent violence and threats against unionists and that any alleged excess of law enforcement officials is investigated through established legal and administrative procedures. The Committee further notes from the Government’s report in the framework of the pending article 26 proceedings that, in February 2023, the Ministry of Labour and Employment (MOLE) requested the Ministry of Home Affairs to create a dedicated committee for ensuring and monitoring proper investigation of alleged cases of violence and harassment by the police against workers, including in the context of protests. While welcoming this initiative, the Committee strongly encourages the Government to speed up its efforts to approve and establish the committee and to provide information on its composition and functioning in practice. The Committee expects these measures to significantly contribute to speedy and transparent investigations of violations of trade unionists’ civil liberties.

The Committee further notes that, in its 2023 observations, the ITUC expresses concern as to the anti-union tendencies of the security and police forces in relation to the exercise of workers’ rights and denounces new instances of violence and union busting. In particular, the Committee notes with deep concern the death of Shahidul Ismal, a labour organizer at the Bangladesh Garment and Industrial Workers’ Federation (BGIWF), and the wounding of Ahmed Sharif, also a union organizer, in July 2023 in Dhaka. The two were attacked by a group of assailants after they were assisting garment workers to obtain unpaid salaries. The ITUC also reports: (i) injuries to at least 16 garment workers in April 2022 when, during a clash over unpaid salaries, the police charged them with batons; and (ii) a serious case of union busting in a garment factory in 2021 and 2022, involving intimidation, threats and torture of union officers. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the specific ITUC allegations, as well as those reported by the TU-ILS in 2022, and urges the Government to ensure that rapid investigations are conducted by an independent entity to determine those responsible, punish the guilty parties and prevent the repetition of any such acts.

In its previous comments, the Committee also encouraged the Government to continue to provide all necessary training and awareness-raising to the police and other State agents on human and trade union rights and urged the Government to review their role to ensure that issues purely concerning labour relations are relegated to the unique authority of the relevant Ministry. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government on the training and sensitizing programmes offered to Industrial Police personnel (1,348 personnel trained between January and June 2023), as well as continued training of workers, management and government officials on the applicable laws and regulations and the prevention of violence provided by the Department of Labour (DOL) and the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA). The Government also indicates that a compendium of laws in Bangla has been drafted, allowing training of Industrial Police to focus on human and trade union rights, labour rights, labour law and other relevant laws and regulations. While taking note of the continued training and other initiatives undertaken, the Committee observes that, according to the TU-ILS, no steps were taken to relegate the authority regarding Industrial Police to the MOLE and the attitude towards trade union leaders has not changed, with new cases filed against them. The Committee is also aware, from publicly available information and the discussion in the Governing Body, of recent incidents of violence in the context of minimum wage protests, leading to injuries, arrests and the death of several workers. In light of the above, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide and indeed intensify targeted training to the Industrial Police on the use of minimum force when engaged in crowd control measures, in particular during labour protests, and urges the Government once again to review the role of the Industrial Police,with the workers’ and employers’ organizations concerned, so as to ensure that issues purely concerning labour relations are relegated to the unique authority of the relevant Ministry.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to organize. Registration of trade unions. For a number of years, the Committee has been addressing the need to simplify the registration process to make it user-friendly, objective, rapid and transparent, including by providing comprehensive training to the relevant officers responsible for registration. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that training and workshops for DOL officials, as well as workers’ representatives, are ongoing, as are discussions to explore the possibility of further simplifying both online and regular registration systems. The Government provides updated statistics on registration between November 2022 and June 2023, which show that 421 new applications were received in addition to 83 pending applications, out of which 236 were accepted, 75 rejected, 172 filed and 102 remain pending. It further informs about the main reasons for rejecting trade union registration (lack of minimum membership, use of fake names, fraudulent practices, etc.). The Committee understands from the above that, in the specified period, registration was only granted to about half of all the applications received, that a large number of the applications were considered as invalid and were filed and that around 15 per cent of all the applications were rejected. It further observes that the Government does not distinguish in its report between the reasons that render a registration application invalid or inadmissible (the application is then filed without assessing whether the material requirements of registration are fulfilled) and those invoked by the Registrar to reject a valid registration application because it does not meet the registration requirements.

The Committee also observes that the ITUC and the TU-ILS raise a number of concerns and point to obstacles with regard to the registration process, including procedural complexities in the online application, delays in registration, DOL-created layers of approval (investigation hearings and other procedures) leading to arbitrary decisions, employers’ opposition to trade union registration and lack of consultations on the simplification of the registration process. The ITUC also alleges that the rejection rate of applications by independent unions is higher than indicated by the Government as many of the approved applications only concern government-controlled unions. In these circumstances, the Committee urges the Government to continue to engage with workers’ representatives on ways to further simplify the registration process and eliminate any legislative or practical obstacles that prevent it from becoming a rapid, objective and transparent process. The Committee also requests the Government once again to provide detailed information on the reasons which were found in practice to render applications for registration invalid or inadmissible, as well as the reasons which justify the rejection of applications because they do not meet the registration requirements. The Committee encourages the Government to continue to provide adapted training to the relevant officials who are responsible for assessing registration applications. The Committee expects that the Government will be in a position to report progress on this long-standing issue in its next report.

Minimum membership requirements. The Committee had previously pointed to the need to review the BLA with a view to reducing the minimum membership requirements to a reasonable level (currently at 20 per cent, section 179(2)); ending the possible cancellation of trade unions that fall below minimum membership requirements (section 190(f)); and addressing the limits on the number of trade unions in an establishment (currently at three unions, section 179(5)). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no union has yet been cancelled under section 190(f) of the BLA and that the tripartite constituents in the Tripartite Working Group (TWG) for the BLA have discussed the issue of further lowering the minimum membership requirement and will make a comprehensive recommendation on the issue. The Committee further observes from the Government’s statement to the Governing Body, within the framework of the discussions on the article 26 proceedings, that the minimum membership requirement for enterprises with over 3,000 workers was reduced from 20 to 15 per cent and the minimum membership requirement in groups of establishments from 30 to 20 per cent (section 183(6)). While taking due note of these amendments, the Committee understands that very few enterprises employ over 3,000 workers and recalls that a minimum membership requirement of 15 per cent in such enterprises and 20 per cent in groups of establishments is still excessive. The Committee further observes with regret that the Government has once again failed to take the opportunity of a legislative reform to address the Committee’s previous concerns in relation to sections 179(2) and (5) and 190(f) and notes that the ITUC points to difficulties in almost all factories to reach the minimum membership requirement. The Committee therefore requests the Government to continue to discuss the matter with a view to reducing the minimum membership requirements to a reasonable level (sections 179(2) and 183(6)), bearing in mind the recommendations of the tripartite constituents, and also with a view to amending sections 179(5) and 190(f) accordingly.

With regard to the application of the BLA to workers in the agricultural sector, in its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information on the practical application of the reduced minimum membership requirement in Rule 167(4) of the Bangladesh Labour Rules (BLR) applicable to groups of establishments, including small family farms (300 members). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are 38 registered trade unions in groups of establishments in the agricultural sector in 20 out of 64 districts, covering 6,834 members and that the stakeholders did not report any hindrance in this regard. While taking note of this update, the Committee observes that the reported unionization rate in the agricultural sector seems extremely low given that tens of millions of workers are engaged in agricultural activities in Bangladesh, and that many of these may well be prevented from trade union activities as a practical matter. Recallingthat a minimum requirement of 300 members may in practice restrict the right to organize, especially in case of small family farms, the Committee requests the Government to continue to take measures, in consultation with the social partners, to reduce the requirement in Rule 167(4) so as to ensure that agricultural workers can exercise their right to organize without hindrance.

Articles 2 and 3. Right to organize, elect officers and carry out activities freely. Bangladesh Labour Act. In its previous comment, the Committee urged the Government to ensure that worker representation in the National Tripartite Consultative Council (NTCC), which is reviewing the BLA, reflects the independent choice of the trade union movement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that with the assistance of the Office, it is developing institutional mechanisms and capacity-building for the NTCC, as well as a road map on social partners’ awareness and capacity-building for social dialogue and collective bargaining. The Committee however observes the concerns raised by the ITUC and the TU-ILS that malpractices in the selection process of workers’ representatives in tripartite delegations continue, including lack of transparency and independence. Noting these allegations with concern, the Committee urges the Government once again to ensure that selection of workers’ representatives into the NTCC reflects the independent choice of the labour movement, so as to allow the NTCC to expeditiously and transparently conduct its work in reviewing the BLA with the aim of aligning it with the Convention.

In relation to the review of the BLA, the Government further informs that, with the assistance of the ILO, a draft amendment of the BLA was discussed and finalized by the TWG, the Tripartite Labour Law Review Committee and the NTCC. While the Committee does not have at its disposal an official translation of the BLA amendment approved by the Parliament in November 2023, it takes note of the Government’s indication to the Governing Body in the framework of the discussions on the article 26 proceedings that several amendments agreed on with the Office could not be implemented for technical reasons. The Committee understands, from the draft version of the BLA submitted to the Parliament, that besides the slight reduction in the minimum membership requirements mentioned above (referring to very large enterprises and groups of establishments), amendments were made to section 185 (broadening of the right to organize of seamen). While welcoming these amendments, the Committee observes that most of the other provisions previously highlighted by the Committee as raising concerns with regard to their compatibility with the Convention were not addressed by the labour law review. The Committee is, therefore, obliged to recall the need to further review and amend, or provide information on, the following provisions of the BLA: (i) scope of the law – restrictions on numerous sectors and workers remain, including, among others, Government workers, university teachers and domestic workers (sections 1(4), 2(49) and (65), 175 and 185 (further amendments necessary on the right to organize of seamen)); (ii)) restrictions on organizing in groups of establishments (sections 179(5) and 183(1)); (iii) restrictions on trade union membership (sections 2(65), 175, 193 and 300); (iv) interference in trade union activity, including cancellation of registration for reasons that do not justify the severity of the act (sections 192, 196(2)(b) read in conjunction with 190(1)(c), (e) and (g), 229, 291(2)–(3) and 299); (v) interference in trade union elections (section 180(1)(a) read in conjunction with section 196(2)(d), and sections 180(b) and 317(4)(d)); (vi) interference in the right to draw up constitutions freely by providing overly detailed instructions (sections 179(1) and 188 (in addition, there seems to be a discrepancy in that section 188 gives the DOL the power to register and, under certain circumstances, refuse to register any amendments to the constitution of a trade union and its Executive Council whereas Rule 174 of the BLR only refers to notification of such changes to the DOL who will issue a new certificate)); (vii) excessive restrictions on the right to strike (sections 211(3)–(4) and (8) and 227(c)) accompanied by severe penalties (sections 196(2)(e), 291(2)–(3) and 294–296); and (viii) excessive preferential rights for collective bargaining agents (sections 202(24)(b), (c) and (e) and 204). Furthermore, the Committee is still awaiting information on whether workers in small farms consisting of less than five workers can, in law and practice, group together with other workers to form a trade union or affiliate to existing workers’ organizations (section 1(4)(n) and (p) of the BLA). The Committee observes with regret that the Government did not avail itself of the opportunity to address these numerous and long-standing concerns during the recent amendment of the BLA despite continued and extensive technical assistance provided by the Office. Further noting the commitment of the Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs expressed in the Governing Body to address other outstanding amendments previously discussed with the Office, the Committee has been subsequently informed that the President has sent the amended law back to the Parliament for further consideration and firmly expects that the opportunity will be taken to address its pending comments so as to ensure compliance with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the progress made in this regard. The Committee requests the Government to provide an English translation of the amended BLA.

The Committee also observes the Government’s indication to the Governing Body that section 34 of the Bangladesh Economic Zones Act, 2010 (BEZA) was amended so as to make the BLA applicable in special economic zones, instead of the Export Processing Zones Labour Act, 2019 (ELA). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the practical application of this amendment, in particular to indicate when the BLA will start to be applicable in special economic zones and to provide statistics on the formation of trade unions in these zones. The Committee requests the Government to provide an English version of the amended BEZA.

Bangladesh Labour Rules. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information on the application of Rule 188 (formation of election committees that conduct the election of worker representatives to participation committees in the absence of a union), as well as on the results of the Government’s efforts to pilot such elections without any representation of employers (compared to the amended rule of one employer representative in election committees). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the DOL has been supervising the election of workers’ representatives to participation committees but observes that the Government does not elaborate on the practical application of the amended Rule 188 or on the pilot project. The Committee therefore reiterates its previous request in this regard.

In its previous comment, the Committee also took note of the 2022 BLR amendment and urged the Government to ensure an expedited review of the remaining issues of BLR compatibility with the Convention (Rules 2(g) and (j); 85, Schedule IV, sub-rule 1(h); 169(4); 190; 202; and 350)). The Committee notes that both the ITUC and the TU-ILS raise concerns in relation to the pending issues of BLR compatibility with the Convention and allege, in addition, that: employers use participation committees to suppress trade union activities at the factory level; Rule 172(3) requires both the Director General and the union to inform the employer about its registration; Rule 81(4) allows for a predominant role of employers in the selection of the safety committee secretary and Rule 81(10) gives employers, in certain circumstances, a role in determining workers’ representatives in safety committees, leading to concerns as to the legitimacy of these committees, which are essential to ensure safe working conditions. The Committee further observes the amendment to Rule 183(2) which limits workers’ representatives in participation committees to permanent workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the practical application of these amendments and urges the Government once again to ensure an expedited review of all the remaining issues in relation to the Bangladesh Labour Rules, detailed in its previous and current comments, so as to bring them into conformity with the Convention.

Right to organize in export processing zones. In its previous comment, the Committee urged the Government to expedite the review of the ELA to provide EPZ workers with all the rights guaranteed in the Convention, including on matters concerning the minimum membership requirements to establish Workers’ Welfare Associations (WWAs) and federations and the right to associate with other entities. The Committee further requested the Government to provide detailed information on the number of applications and registrations of WWAs, WWA federations and employers’ associations.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the amendment process of the ELA started in July 2023, including consultations with the social partners, and should be completed by 2025; (ii) the issues raised by the Committee will be thoroughly reviewed in the process; (iii) the BEPZA and the ILO jointly conducted workshops on improving labour standards in the EPZs and trainings for relevant stakeholders; (iv) the BEPZA engaged in an exchange of views with WWA representatives on labour rights in EPZs and in consultations with workers’ and employers’ representatives on labour rights and best practices, the ELA and the EPZ Labour Rules adopted in 2022. The Committee also takes note of the statistical information provided on the formation and registration of WWAs between November 2022 and July 2023, showing that 31 applications for registration were received and granted. While taking due note of the Government’s initiatives and welcoming the continued technical assistance of the Office, the Committee must recall that an exceptionally large number of provisions still need to be repealed or substantially amended to ensure the conformity of the ELA with the Convention and that many of the issues raised under the ELA continue under the newly adopted EPZ Labour Rules (an official translation has not yet been made available to the Committee for a detailed assessment). It also observes the allegations of the ITUC that the situation of the right to organize worsened with the implementation of the ELA, as workers can only join a WWA, where they may not be given the full scope of collective bargaining. The Committee therefore urges the Government to expedite the review of the ELA and the EPZ Labour Rules, in full consultation with the social partners, to ensure the conformity of the legislation with the Convention, in particular on the pending issues highlighted by the Committee in its previous and current comments. The Committee recalls that these include, among others, scope of the law, minimum membership requirements, various forms of interference in WWAs’ or WWA federations’ internal affairs, unduly broad powers and interference of the Zone Authority, and excessive restrictions on the administration and functioning of WWAs, federations and employers’ organizations. The Committee further requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of applications and registrations of WWAs, WWA federations and employers’ organizations in EPZs, and to provide an English translation of the EPZ Rules.

In its previous comment, the Committee also encouraged the Government to continue to review the inspection framework set out in the EPZ Labour Rules to ensure the necessary independence of the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE) and to continue to provide statistical information on inspections of the DIFE in EPZs. The Government informs that the DIFE inspection modality of EPZ factories had been incorporated in the EPZ Labour Rules and that the DIFE is conducting inspections independently and frequently (52 EPZ factories inspected as of July 2023). While taking note of this indication, the Committee recalls that sections 168(1) and 180(g) of the ELA stipulate that the BEPZA Chairperson retains ultimate supervision of labour standards in EPZs and that Rule 290 of the EPZ Labour Rules provides that the DIFE shall submit inspection reports to the Additional Inspector General of the zones who shall direct the concerned establishment to implement the recommendations which he deems feasible. Considering that these provisions may hinder the independent nature and proper functioning of labour inspection, the Committee requests the Government to continue to review the inspection framework set out in the EPZ Labour Rules to ensure the necessary independence of the DIFE and to continue to provide statistical information on DIFE inspections of EPZs. The Committee once again requests the Government to continue to take steps to ensure that unrestricted access for and jurisdiction over labour inspection activities in EPZs is provided to DIFE inspectors. The Committee refers to its more detailed comments on this point made under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81).

Finally, noting the Government’s indication that all relevant ministries and departments have been engaged in the implementation of the road map established to address all outstanding matters contained in the article 26 complaint, and recalling the overlapping nature of these matters and those raised in the present comment, the Committee expects full and genuine engagement of the Government in addressing these issues. In particular, the Committee firmly expects any upcoming measures taken by the Government, including any legislative amendments, to duly take into account the Committee’s present and previous detailed comments to achieve a timely implementation of the road map and full compliance with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report of 9 September 2022 on progress made on the implementation of the roadmap of actions to address all outstanding issues in the complaint pending under article 26 of the ILO Constitution concerning this Convention, among others, as well as the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 346th Session (November 2022) requesting the Government to report on further progress made to its 347th Session (March 2023) and to defer the decision on further action to that session.

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and of the Trade Union Committee of International Labour Standards (TU-ILS) (a committee of the workers’ representatives from the National Coordination Committee for Workers’ Education (NCCWE) and IndustriALL Bangladesh Council (IBC)), both received on 1 September 2022, referring to matters addressed in this comment and alleging new cases of violence and repression by police, as well as continued retaliation against workers in connection with trade union activities and surveillance of trade unionists by the authorities.

Civil liberties. The Committee has been expressing deep concern at the allegations of violence and intimidation of workers for a number of years and has urged the Government to provide information on any such specific allegations remaining and to take all necessary measures to prevent such incidents in the future and ensure that, if they occur, they are properly investigated.

The Committee notes the Government’s reference to cases filed against trade unionists that remain sub-judice and the regular monitoring by the Ministry of Labour and Employment. As regards the specific allegations concerning the Jute Mills in Chittagong, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that there was no incident of clash between the Jute Mill workers and Industrial police, nor were there any incidents of July 2020 where the Mills were closed by the authority. As regards the allegation of injuries to ten garment workers during a protest over non-payment of wages in Gazipur in September 2018, the Government states that the allegation does not provide any clear information regarding a specific incident, with no reference to date or factory, and in any event denies that any workers were injured during protests over non-payment of wages in Gazipur in this period. As regards the allegations of increased pressure and state surveillance of garment federations by a newly-formed unit in the Department of National Security, resulting in at least 175 trade union leaders and active members being blacklisted and 26 of them facing criminal and civil charges, the Government indicates that the Bangladesh Labour Act (BLA) leaves no scope for blacklisting trade union leaders or workers and requests particularly information on the allegations of blacklisting in order to consider any action that might be taken if a violation is found.

The Government further provides information on the training and sensitization programs that have been organized for the personnel of disputes by the Industrial Police, referring specifically to orientation courses on labour rights, labour laws, human rights and workers’ federation activities. The Industrial Police has trained 1,389 of its personnel so far concerning prevention of violence, unfair labour practices and anti-union acts as part of its broader training programmes. In collaboration with the ILO, the Department of Labour (DOL) has planned a training for 90 Industrial Police personnel ranked from Superintendents of Police to Sub-Inspectors of Police in August 2022 and a training of trainers on preventing unfair labour practice, violence and harassment in September 2022. Bangladesh Police also provides regular training on these issues to its personnel across the board, while further upgrading of training curricula for Industrial Police, with added features concerning labour rights and trade union activities, is being discussed with Industrial Police and the ILO. Ministry of Labour and Employment (MOLE), Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs continue to provide instructions to their subsidiary agencies regarding handling of cases, including those involving alleged acts of violence and harassment against workers. The judiciary, prosecutorial services and law enforcement agencies receive regular training on these issues as part of their mandate. Further customized training may be provided based on specific needs and with ILO’s technical support. Additionally, from July 2020 to June 2022, DOL has trained about 20,000 workers, management staff, and government officials through its 4 Industrial Relations Institutes (IRIs) and 32 Labour Welfare Centres (LWCs), with nearly 45% female participants. The training topics include violence, harassment, unfair labour practices and anti-union discrimination in the workplace. DOL has also taken the initiative to provide training to the security staff, managers/employers of factories, providing basic information concerning complaint management and investigations, while the Industrial Police continues to engage with employers and factory management to sensitize their respective security personnel about prevention of violence and supporting investigations in case of alleged violence and harassment. A database on training, linked to the DOL website, is being supported by the ICT service vendor and will incorporate relevant information of the trainees (segregated by name, designation, factory/ trade union, age, sex, etc.) collected from the IRIs and LWCs. Further discussions are required to explore the possibility of including information on Industrial Police training in the proposed online database. Finally, the Government indicates that both DOL and the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE) are entrusted with monitoring the case proceedings and management, including for those concerning alleged acts of violence and harassment against workers. The Government adds that it continues to consider the setting up of a dedicated Cell within an appropriate Ministry/agency to ensure and monitor proper investigation of such alleged cases as part of yet another confidence-building measure.

While taking due note of the various initiatives referred to by the Government, the Committee notes with concern the ITUC allegations in its latest communication that the climate for the exercise of trade union rights and the protection of workers is getting worse. According to the ITUC, strikes are met with extreme brutality by the police, who use batons, gunshots, tear gas and sound grenades against workers, killing at least five workers and injuring dozens more in 2021 after police opened fire on a crowd of workers demanding unpaid wages and a pay rise in Chittagong. The ITUC further refers to: i) attacks by the industrial police in Gazipur on protesting garment workers on 15 February 2022; ii) police inflicted injuries on workers protesting sexual harassment on 1 February 2022 in the Tongi Industrial Area; iii) the injury on 13 June 2021, following a police crackdown, of garment workers demanding their wages after the closure of a factory in the Dhaka export processing zone (DEPZ); iv) twelve workers severely injured when police used disproportionate force to suppress protests against unpaid wages and allowances in Dhaka on 25 July 2020. According to the ITUC, these events show a pattern of police attacks against protesting workers and if unpunished will result in impunity by the police and security forces who insert themselves into the industrial relations of the country. The Committee further observes the comments of the TU-ILS that while most complaints related to the 2016 and 2018 minimum wage unrest have been settled, several cases remain pending. The TU-ILS provides a detailed list of remaining cases with relevant case numbers, adding that in some factories, personal information and photos of the workers concerned is shared claiming that they are involved in a criminal offense while the case is still pending. The TU-ILS further alleges that the industrial police are trying to take on the role of conciliator or arbitrator of labour disputes, sometimes intimidating workers to resign. Some factories have provided accommodation for the industrial police and trade union offices are under police surveillance and lists are being made of workers attending trade union meetings. As regards the establishment of 29 committees of officials from the DOL and the DIFE, which the Government previously indicated had the aim of ensuring peaceful and congenial working conditions in ready-made garment (RMG) factories, the TU-ILS alleges that, while these committees are tripartite, they are highly political and administratively controlled, mostly influenced by the police, with labour representation selectively chosen. The TU-ILS asks for detailed information on the committees, their activities and disputes resolved. As for training and awareness-raising activities for the police, the TU-ILS contends that there has been only a limited number of trainings with little result. In the view of TU-ILS, dispute resolution mechanisms are what is needed.

The Committee notes with concern the very detailed information provided by the ITUC and the TU-ILS concerning numerous allegations of new cases of violence against trade unionists carried out by the industrial police. While the Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government concerning the previous allegations, it observes that the industrial relations climate appears to remain one of little trust with confrontation a regular attribute. The Committee must therefore once again recall that a truly free and independent trade union movement can only develop in a climate free from violence, pressure and threats of any kind against the leaders and members of such organizations. The Committee requests the Government to review all the allegations of violence, harassment and intimidation with the TU-ILS with a view to carrying out the necessary investigations to determine those responsible, punishing the guilty parties and preventing the repetition of any such acts. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of all steps taken in this regard.

Furthermore, while noting the information provided by the Government concerning the training of the industrial police, the Committee notes with concern the numerous allegations concerning the expansion of the role of industrial police at the factory level in such a way as to intimidate and impede workers in the exercise of their freedom of association guaranteed by the Convention. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to continue to provide all necessary training and awareness-raising to the police and other State agents to sensitize them about human and trade union rights and urges the Government to review their role, with the workers’ and employers’ organizations concerned, so as to ensure that issues purely concerning labour relations are relegated to the unique authority of the relevant Ministry.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to organize. Registration of trade unions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it has been implementing a number of initiatives to make the registration process simple, objective, rapid and transparent. The Government refers in particular to: (i) training of DOL officials on the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in November 2021 with the collaboration of the ILO; (ii) 10 DOL officials have joined a three month training programme on Labour Relations and Social Dialogue conducted by the International Training Centre of the ILO in association with the Institute of Social Welfare and Research of the University of Dhaka; (iii) a pre-application service desk was established in every office of the Registrar of Trade Union (RTU) under DOL in January 2021 to ensure smooth registration through quality applications by scrutinizing trade union registration application documents; (iv) despite the adverse effect of COVID-19, 290 trade unions were registered in 2020 and 376 in 2021, while the success rate has increased from 88.69% to 92.38% during the same period; (v) digitization of the trade union registration process under DOL was completed on 27 October 2021 and was made active for users on 1 April 2022. The online registration system will be regularly reviewed and updated based on stakeholder feedback. The Committee further notes the statistics provided on registration disaggregated by year and status and the Government’s indication that the Publicly Accessible Online Database was activated on 30 September 2021 on the DOL website (www.dol.gov.bd) with the assistance of the Social Dialogue and Industrial Relations Project of ILO. It provides information on 11 areas, namely status of trade union application, registration, rejection, and filing; the number of national and sector wide trade union federations, participation committees, collective bargaining agreements; and information on unfair labour practices/ anti-union discrimination as well as conciliation of labour disputes. The Government states that the database, which was presented to a tripartite consultative workshop on 7 August 2022, should enhance the transparency of the trade union registration process, and will continue to be updated with relevant information.

The Committee notes however the TU-ILS allegations that: (i) while the law enables three unions per workplace, the DOL will only register one union; (ii) after a registration application is filed, the confidential information of the workers concerned is leaked to the employers through DOL requests to the employer for different documents. The workers then become vulnerable to intimidation and harassment; (iii) there are various requirements not contained in the law that hinder registration (i.e., representation of DOL in the general meeting to sign minutes; requirement that 20 per cent of the workers attend the general meeting for the union; requirement of permission from the local police for in-house or public meetings; delays in registration of five-months and beyond; requirement to submit both offline and online); (iv) the application portal is not well maintained and usage is not simple. The ITUC for its part regrets the lack of involvement of the Bangladeshi unions in the design of the registration process. The Committee notes with concern the allegations of interference by the Government in the steps taken by workers to form organizations of their own choosing and recalls that workers’ organizations must be able to draw up their constitutions and rules in full freedom without government interference. The Committee further notes the numerous concerns raised by the TU-ILS as regards hurdles to registration that are not set out in the law, and observes from the statistics provided by the Government that the number of valid applications out of the total applications (as opposed to the percentage of unions registered which is only based on valid applications) continues to remain quite low (2021: 281 out of 394; January through July 2022: 57 out of 128). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the types of issues found when determining invalid applications and it encourages the Government to continue to engage with the workers’ organizations concerned as regards the functioning of the digitized registration process for their feedback on any obstacles encountered and consideration of measures to redress them. The Committee also encourages the Government to continue to provide comprehensive training to divisional and regional officers who, following the decentralization of the registration process, are responsible for registration of trade unions, so as to ensure that they have sufficient knowledge and capacity to handle applications for registration rapidly and efficiently, while taking steps to ensure confidentiality of workers and their identity.

Minimum membership requirements. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the 2018 amendment to the BLA, reducing the minimum membership requirement to form a trade union and maintain its registration from 30 per cent to 20 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment in which a union is formed, is being applied since its entry into force on 14 November 2018. According to the Government, while taking into account the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the reduction to the minimum membership requirement has resulted in an increase in the number of registration applications. (2018: 394; 2019: 943; 2020: 413; 2021: 394). The Committee recalls its previous comment that the 20 per cent threshold is still likely to be excessive, especially in large enterprises, where it constitutes a hurdle to form a union, and takes note of the indication by the TU-ILS that it has proposed the repeal of section 190(f) which allows for cancellation of a trade union if its membership falls below the minimum membership requirement, and section179(5) which limits the number of trade unions in an establishment or group of establishments to a maximum of three. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report on the progress made with the timely implementation of the roadmap that amendment proposals from the tripartite constituents have been compiled by the Tripartite Labour Law Review Committee for discussion on the compiled recommendations to be forwarded to the tripartite working group (TWG) and that the MOLE is engaged with the ILO to align the BLA with relevant international labour standards. The Committee expects thatthe Government will make progress in the near future in its tripartite review of sections 179(5) and 190(f) of the BLA with a view to reducing the minimum membership requirements to a reasonable level, at least for large enterprises, and ending the possible cancellation of trade unions that fall below minimum membership requirements, as well as addressing the limits on the number of trade unions in an establishment.

With regard to the application of the BLA to workers in the agricultural sector through Bangladesh Labour Rule 167(4), the Committee notes the Government’s indication that there has been consultation on the issue with relevant stakeholders including social partners and that the Bangladesh Labour Rules Amendment Committee has proposed a reduction for small family farms and observes from an official English version of the rule that the minimum number has been reduced to 300. Observing that the requirement of even 300 workers to form a union in a group of establishments in one district might still be excessive, especially for workers on small family farms, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the practical application of this requirement, including the number of unions of agricultural workers registered and the number of workers represented and establishments covered by each of these unions, and trusts that further measures will be considered to ensure that agricultural workers can exercise their right to organize without hindrance.

Articles 2 and 3. Right to organize, elect officers and carry out activities freely. Bangladesh Labour Act. The Committee notes the Government’s general indication that all amendments made in 2018 to the BLA are in force and applied from the date of enactment. A National Tripartite Consultative Council (NTCC) formed to deal with national level labour issues meets at regular intervals. The Committee regretshowever that the Government has not provided any further information in relation to the numerous sections for which the Committee has requested amendment, repeal or further information. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the following provisions: (i) scope of the law – restrictions on numerous sectors and workers remain, including, among others, Government workers, university teachers and domestic workers (sections 1(4), 2(49) and (65) and 175); (ii) one remaining restriction on organizing in civil aviation (section 184(1) – the provision should clarify that trade unions in civil aviation can be formed irrespective of whether they wish to affiliate with international federations or not); (iii) restrictions on organizing in groups of establishments (sections 179(5) and 183(1)); (iv) restrictions on trade union membership (sections 2(65), 175, 193 and 300); (v) interference in trade union activity, including cancellation of registration for reasons that do not justify the severity of the act (sections 192, 196(2)(b) read in conjunction with 190(1)(c), (e) and (g), 229, 291(2)–(3) and 299); (vi) interference in trade union elections (section 180(1)(a) read in conjunction with section 196(2)(d), and sections 180(b) and 317(4)(d)); (vii) interference in the right to draw up constitutions freely by providing overly detailed instructions (sections 179(1) and 188 (in addition, there seems to be a discrepancy in that section 188 gives the DOL the power to register and, under certain circumstances, refuse to register any amendments to the constitution of a trade union and its Executive Council whereas Rule 174 of the Bangladesh Labour Rules(BLR) only refers to notification of such changes to the DOL who will issue a new certificate)); (viii) excessive restrictions on the right to strike (sections 211(3)–(4) and (8) and 227(c)) accompanied by severe penalties (sections 196(2)(e), 291(2)–(3) and 294–296); and (ix) excessive preferential rights for collective bargaining agents (sections 202(24)(b), (c) and (e) and 204 (while noting the minor amendments to sections 202 and 204, the Committee notes that these amendments do not address its concerns in that they limit the scope of action of trade unions other than the collective bargaining agents). Furthermore, the Committee is still awaiting information on whether workers in small farms consisting of less than five workers can, in law and practice, group together with other workers to form a trade union or affiliate to existing workers’ organizations (section 1(4)(n) and (p) of the BLA).

The Committee further observes with concern the observations from the TU-ILS that the worker nomination to the TCC charged with reviewing the legislation was made by the Government and not by the workers organizations independently and further that the recommendations agreed by the tripartite representatives for amendment to the BLR were not endorsed, stalling the process for some time. Similarly, not all proposals agreed by tripartite representatives in 2018 for the amendment of the BLA were reflected in the final Act. Finally, the TU-ILS indicates that TCC meetings do not take place regularly and alleges that it meets merely to validate government needs. The Committee renews its request that the Government amend, repeal, or provide explanations as applicable regarding the provisions of the BLA identified above. In that connection, and noting the information provided by the Government concerning the ongoing review process to be carried out by the NTCC, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the worker representation reflects the independent choice of the Bangladesh trade union movement and requests the Government to schedule regular meetings to expedite the work of the NTCC so that it may review the above provisions of the BLA and bring them fully into line with the Convention.

Bangladesh Labour Rules. The Committee notes from the Government’s progress report to the Governing Body within the framework of the section 26 complaint that the amended BLR were published through gazette notification on 1 September 2022. While the Government has not yet provided an official English version of the Rules, the Committee welcomes the amendment that appears to have been made to Rule 183 clarifying that it is not necessary to form a participation committee in companies where a union is present. It further observes that Rule 204 appears to have been amended to allow all workers to participate in a secret ballot. The Committee further notes that Rule 188, which provides for employer participation in the formation of election committees that conduct the election of worker representatives to participation committees in the absence of a union, has been amended to limit the employer representation to one, giving greater weight to the workers’ representation. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the application of Rule 188, as well as on the results of the Government’s efforts previously reported to pilot election of worker representatives to participation committees without any representation of employers. The Committee however notes with regret that the following rules which the Committee had previously requested the Government to address appear not to have been amended in the manner requested: (i) Rule 2(g) and (j) contains a broad definition of administrative and supervisory officers who are excluded from the definition of workers under the BLA and thus from the right to organize; (ii) Rule 85, Schedule IV, sub-rule 1(h) prohibits members of the Safety Committee from initiating or participating in an industrial dispute; (iii) Rule 169(4) limits eligibility to a trade union executive committee to permanent workers, which may adversely affect the right of workers’ organizations to elect their officers freely; (iv) Rule 190 prohibits certain categories of workers from voting for worker representatives to participation committees; (v) Rule 202 contains broad restrictions on actions taken by trade unions and participation committees; (vi) Rule 350 provides for excessively broad powers of inspection by the Director of Labour; and (vii) the BLR lacks provisions providing appropriate procedures and remedies for unfair labour practice complaints. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government appears not to have taken advantage of the recent revision process to address the above-mentioned concerns and urges it to ensure an expedited review of these remaining issues so that the Bangladesh Labour Rules may be brought fully into conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee further requests the Government to transmit the English version of the Rules.

Right to organize in Export Processing Zones (EPZs). The Committee recalls its previous comments concerning the need to further amend the Export Processing Zone Labour Act (ELA) of February 2019 to bring it into conformity with the Convention and to issue the rules under the Act to fully ensure freedom of association and, in particular, the right to organize. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s reiteration of the favourable treatment to workers in EPZs through separate laws, rules and regulations and the important improvements made with the adoption of the ELA. The Government adds that a Tripartite Standing Committee was formed in November 2021 to work on the draft Rules for the ELA and consensus was reached on most of them. The proposed draft EPZ Labour rules, contains 15 chapters, 319 rules, 4 schedules and 106 forms, including: prevention of discrimination and conducting investigation against anti WWA activities; provisions on forming a federation; Procedure of formation of employers’ association; modalities of DIFE inspection in EPZ; and prevention of misconduct to female workers covering prevention of activities against gender-based violence and harassment etc. The vetting of the proposed draft rules has been completed and the gazette notification of EPZ Labour Rules will be published very soon. The Committee notes that the EPZ Labour Rules were published on 4 October 2022. The Committee regrets however that the Government has not provided information as requested on the application in practice of the 2019 amendments, and has only indicated that an impact analysis will cover the period July 2023 to June 2025. The Committee therefore has no information available to it, in particular on the practical implications of these amendments on the number of applications for WWAs and WWA federations submitted and registered. In addition, the Committee observes that Chapter nine of EPZ Labour Rules on Workers’ Welfare Association and Industrial Relations contains a number of rules setting out the role of the EPZ Executive Chairperson or Executive Director in the creation of WWAs, WWA Federations, EPZ employer associations, etc, which include a large degree of discretionary authority and opportunities to interfere in elections (i.e., Rules 172(4) (WWA), 183(1) (election management committee), 202(5) (WWA Federation), 211(5) (employers’ association)) with recourse only available to the EPZ Labour Courts. The Committee once again requests the Government to continue to review the measures concerning the establishment of WWAs and WWA federations, in consultation with the social partners concerned, to endeavour to further reduce, to a reasonable level, the minimum membership requirements to form a WWA, especially in large establishments, as well as for federations, and to allow WWAs and federations to associate with other entities in the same Zone and outside the Zone in which they were established, including with non-EPZ workers’ organizations at different levels. The Committee further requests the Government to provide detailed information on the number of applications received for the formation of WWAs, WWA Federations and employers’ associations and the number registered.

While noting from the Government’s report to the Governing Body on the progress made in implementing the roadmap developed within the framework of the article 26 complaint that the Bangladesh Export Processing Zone Authority (BEPZA) is closely engaged with the ILO for improvement of labour standards in EPZs and has held meetings in August and September 2022 regarding amendment of the EPZ Labour Act, 2019, the Committee must reiterate its deep regret that most of the changes to the Act that it had requested have still not been addressed. As a result, many of the issues already raised in relation to the 2019 ELA continue under the unchanged EPZ Labour Rules. The Committee must therefore, once again emphasize the need to further review the ELA to ensure its conformity with the Convention regarding the following matters: (i) scope of the law – specific categories of workers continue to be excluded from the law (workers in supervisory and managerial positions – sections 2(48)) or from Chapter IX dealing with WWAs (members of the watch and ward or security staff, drivers, confidential assistants, cipher assistants, casual workers, workers employed by kitchen or food preparation contractors and workers employed in clerical posts (section 93), as well as workers in managerial positions (section 115(2)); (ii) the imposition of association monopoly at enterprise and industrial unit levels (sections 94(6), 97(5) paragraph 2, 100 and 101); (iii) detailed requirements as to the content of a WWA’s constitution which go beyond formal and may thus hinder the free establishment of WWAs and constitute interference in the right to draw up constitutions freely (section 96(2)(e) and (o)); (iv) limited definition of the functions of WWA members despite the deletion of the word “mainly” from section 102(3); (v) prohibition to hold an election to the Executive Council during a period of six months (reduced from one year), if a previous election was ineffective because less than half of the permanent workers of the enterprise cast a vote (section 103(2)–(3)); (vi) prohibition to function without registration and to collect funds for an unregistered association (section 111); (vii) interference in internal affairs by prohibiting expulsion of certain workers from a WWA (section 147); (viii) broad powers and interference of the Zone Authority in internal WWA affairs by the requirement of approval for funds from an outside source (section 96(3)), approval of any amendment in a WWA constitution and Executive Council (section 99), power to arrange elections to the Executive Council of WWAs (section 103(1)) and its approval (section 104), power to rule on the legitimacy of a transfer or termination of a WWA representative (section 121), power to determine the legitimacy of any WWA and its capacity to act as a collective bargaining agent (section 180(c)) and the monitoring of any WWA elections (section 191); (ix) interference by the authorities in internal affairs by allowing supervision of the elections to the WWA Executive Council by the Executive Director (Labour Relations) and the Inspector-General (sections 167(2)(b) and 169(2)(e)); (x) restrictions imposed on the ability to vote and on the eligibility of workers to the Executive Council (sections 103(2) and (4) and 107); (xi) legislative determination of the tenure of the Executive Council (section 105); (xii) broad definition of unfair labour practices, which also include persuasion of a worker to join a WWA during working hours or commencement of an illegal strike, and imposition of penal sanctions for their violation (sections 116(2)(a) and (f), 151(2)–(3) and 155–156); (xiii) power of the Conciliator appointed by the Zone Authority to determine the validity of a strike notice, without which a lawful strike cannot take place (section 128(2) read in conjunction with section 145(a)); (xiv) possibility to prohibit strike or lockout after 30 days or at any time if the Executive Chairman is satisfied that the continuance of the strike or lockout causes serious harm to productivity in the Zone or is prejudicial to public interest or national economy (section 131(3)–(4)); (xv) possibility of unilateral referral of a dispute to the EPZ Labour Court which could result in compulsory arbitration (sections 131(3)–(5) and 132, read in conjunction with section 144(1)); (xvi) prohibition of strike or lockout for three years in a newly established enterprise and imposition of obligatory arbitration (section 131(9)); (xvii) possibility of hiring temporary workers during a legal strike in cases where the Executive Chairman of the Zone Authority is satisfied that complete cessation of work is likely to risk causing serious damage to the machinery or installation of the industry (section 115(1)(g)); (xviii) excessive penalties, including imprisonment, for illegal strikes (sections 155 and 156); (xix) prohibition to engage in activities which are not described in the constitution as objectives of the association (section 178(1)); (xx) prohibition to maintain any linkage with any political party or organization affiliated to a political party or non-governmental organization, as well as possible cancellation of such association and prohibition to form a WWA within one year after such cancellation (section 178(2)–(3)); (xxi) cancellation of a WWA registration on grounds which do not appear to justify the severity of the sanction (sections 109(b)–(h), 178(3)); (xxii) restriction of WWA activities to the territorial limits of the enterprise thus banning any engagement with actors outside the enterprise, including for training or communication (section 102(2)) and, subject to the right to form federations under section 113, prohibition to associate or affiliate with another WWA in the same Zone, another Zone or beyond the Zone, including non-EPZ workers’ organizations at all levels (section 102(4)); (xxiii) interference in internal affairs of a WWA federation – legislative determination of the duration of a federation (four years) and determination of the procedure of election and other matters by the Zone Authority (section 113); (xxiv) power of the Government to exempt any owner, group of owners, enterprise or group of enterprises, worker or group of workers from any provision of the Act, subjecting the rule of law to discretionary power (section 184); (xxv) excessive requirements to form an association of employers (section 114(1)); (xxvi) prohibition of an employer association to associate or affiliate in any manner with another association beyond the Zone (section 114(2)); (xxvii) excessive powers of interference in employers’ associations’ affairs (section 114(3)); and (xxviii) the possibility for the Zone Authority, with the approval of the Government, to establish regulations (section 204) which could further restrain the right of workers and their organizations to carry out legitimate trade union activities without interference. While taking due note that the Government intends to use the period from 2023 to 2025 to review the impact of the ELA, the Committee is deeply concerned that an exceptionally large number of provisions still need to be repealed or substantially amended to ensure its conformity with the Convention. The Committee urges the Government to expedite the review of the ELA, in consultation with the social partners, so as to address the issues highlighted above and provide EPZ workers with all the rights guaranteed in the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to report in detail on the steps taken in this regard.

As regards section 168 of the BLA that allows the Chief Inspector and other inspectors appointed under the BLA to undertake inspections of EPZs, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that pursuant to the preamble and section 3(A), 4(d), 7 (k) and 5A (2) of the BEPZA Act, BEPZA is the only appropriate authority of the Government for development, operation, management and control of EPZs and for matters connected therewith. The Government indicates that BEPZA as the central and competent authority of the Government is successfully performing its duties and responsibilities of administration and inspection in EPZs for the last four decades without any complaint from workers or investors’ as well as any international platform. The Government points out nevertheless that following the ILO’s request, the DIFE inspection was incorporated into the BLA and the modalities have been included in the draft EPZ Labour Rules. On 16 May 2022, a review discussion meeting was held between BEPZA and DIFE, presided over by the Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, regarding a transparent and accountable mechanism of inspection. As of June 2022, DIFE has already inspected 23 factories in EPZs and found overall compliance to be satisfactory. The Committee recalls, however, that DIFE inspectors need the approval of the Executive Chairman to inspect EPZ establishments, while the Chairman retains ultimate supervision of labour standards in EPZs (sections 168(1) and 180(g)). The Committee has considered that such a requirement may hinder the independent nature and proper functioning of labour inspection. The Committee further observes that the EPZ Labor Rules issued on 4 October contain Chapter 13 concerning Administration and Inspection, including a framework for the inspection of DIFE, while Rule 290 provides that the DIFE shall submit the inspection report to the Additional Inspector General of the zones who shall direct the concerned establishment to implement the recommendations which he deems feasible. Referring to its more detailed comments on this point made under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), the Committee encourages the Government to continue to review the inspection framework set out in the Rules so as to ensure the necessary independence of the DIFE and to continue to provide practical information on the functioning of the DIFE in the zones, the recommendations made and those implemented, as well as statistics on the inspections conducted by the zones Labour Inspectorate. The Committee once again requests the Government to continue to take steps to ensure that unrestricted access for and jurisdiction over labour inspection activities in EPZs is provided to DIFE inspectors.

Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that a Tripartite Implementation and Monitoring Committee (TIMC) has been formed by circular of 11 August 2021 and includes the following responsibilities: (1) to monitor the progress of implementation of the time-bound actions contained in the road map; and (2) to provide overall directions for the implementation of the roadmap. Noting the Government’s indication that the technical assistance of both the ILO and development partners is crucial to ensure the successful implementation of the roadmap over a period of time, the Committee expresses the firm expectation that concrete steps will be taken to ensure timely implementation of the objectives of the roadmap taking into account all the above comments.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government on 15 September 2020 in response to a complaint pending under article 26 of the ILO Constitution. In light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020), the Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of this supplementary information received from the Government and the observations submitted by the social partners this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

The Committee notes that the mentioned complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution – alleging non-compliance by Bangladesh with this Convention, as well as the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) – is pending before the Governing Body. At its 340th Session (October–November 2020), the Governing Body, in view of the information communicated by the Government on the situation of freedom of association in the country and taking due note both of the Government’s commitment to continue to further improve the overall situation and to address the outstanding issues before the supervisory bodies: (i) requested the Government to develop, with the support of the Office and of the secretariat of the Workers’ and Employers’ groups, and in full consultation with the social partners concerned, a time-bound roadmap of actions with tangible outcomes to address all the outstanding issues mentioned in the complaint submitted under article 26 to the 108th Session of the International Labour Conference (2019); (ii) requested the Government to report on progress made in that regard to the Governing Body at its next session; and (iii) deferred the decision on further action in respect of the complaint until its 341st Session (March 2021).

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2019 and 15 September 2020, referring to matters addressed in this comment and alleging violent crackdown on strikes of garment workers, as well as continued retaliation against workers in connection with trade union activities and surveillance of trade unionists by the authorities.

The Committee notes the 2018 amendment of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 (BLA) and the adoption of the 2019 Export Processing Zones Labour Act (ELA).

Civil liberties. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed deep concern at the continued violence and intimidation of workers and urged the Government to provide information on the remaining specific allegations of violence and intimidation and to take all necessary measures to prevent such incidents in the future and ensure that, if they occur, they are properly investigated. The Committee further notes the Government’s general statement that: any case of grave allegations of violence and intimidation is investigated by the Department of Police or the Ministry of Home Affairs; preventive measures have been put in place, including awareness-raising, training and seminars for police personnel on human and labour rights; and 29 committees have been formed in eight labour-intensive districts, comprised of officials from the Department of Labour (DOL) and the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE), with the aim of ensuring peaceful and congenial working conditions in ready-made garment (RMG) factories through a number of concrete activities, such as resolving adverse situations in consultation with workers’ and employers’ representatives, publicizing the helpline introduced by the DIFE, reporting to the Ministry on the prevailing labour situation, etc. According to the supplementary information provided by the Government, there are also proposals to further increase the manpower of the DIFE with additional 1,698 positions, including senior positions.

The Committee notes, however, with concern the allegations of violent suppression by the police of several workers’ protests in 2018 and 2019 communicated by the ITUC, which denounce the use of rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons, and the raiding of homes and destruction of property, as a result of which one worker was killed and more than a hundred injured, as well as the filing of false criminal complaints against hundreds of named unionists and thousands of unnamed persons. The Committee notes the Government’s detailed reply thereto and observes that no information was provided in respect of: (i) the alleged injuries to 20 rickshaw drivers during suppression of protests in April 2018; (ii) the alleged injuries to 25 jute mill workers after dispersal of two protests in Chittagong in August 2018; (iii) the alleged injuries to ten garment workers during a protest over non-payment of wages in Gazipur in September 2018; and (iv) the alleged repression of export-processing zones (EPZs) workers for attempting to exercise their limited rights permitted under the law. The Committee further notes with concern the 2020 ITUC allegations referring to: (i) violent crackdowns on strikes in September 2019 and July 2020, resulting in injuries to the workers; (ii) continued anti-union retaliation against garment sector workers, including blacklisting and pending criminal charges against hundreds of workers in connection with the December 2018 and January 2019 minimum wage protests; and (iii) increased pressure and state surveillance of garment federations by a newly-formed unit in the Department of National Security, which resulted in at least 175 trade union leaders and active members being blacklisted and 26 of them facing criminal and civil charges. In this regard, the Committee recalls once again that a truly free and independent trade union movement can only develop in a climate free from violence, pressure and threats of any kind against the leaders and members of such organizations. The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has also been examining allegations of mass retaliation, criminalization, continued surveillance and intimidation of workers for trade union activities, with 19 criminal cases pending against more than 520 workers, in relation to the December 2018 and January 2019 minimum wage protests (see 392nd Report, October 2020, Case No. 3263, paragraphs 266–287). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the remaining specific allegations of violence and repression, as well as on the 2020 ITUC allegations, including to report on any investigations or prosecutions initiated and the results thereof.

The Committee encourages the Government to continue to provide all necessary training and awareness-raising to the police and other State agents to sensitize them about human and trade union rights with the aim of avoiding the use of excessive force and ensuring full respect for civil liberties during public assemblies and demonstrations, and requests the Government to take all necessary measures to prevent such incidents of violence and repression in the future and ensure that, if they occur, they are properly investigated.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to organize. Registration of trade unions. In its previous comment, having observed that the number of rejected applications for registration remained high, the Committee requested the Government to continue to take all necessary measures to ensure that the registration process is a simple formality; to provide updated statistics as to the overall number of applications for registration received, accepted and rejected, and to clarify the status of the 509 applications submitted through the online system, which were not granted. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) have been incorporated in the 2018 amendment of the BLA as a new section and the concerned officials received training on the subject; (ii) after the adoption of the SOPs, the success rate in union registration has increased from 70 per cent in 2017 before the adoption of the SOPs to 81 per cent after their adoption, 82 per cent in 2018, 73 per cent in 2019 and 86 per cent in 2020 (the overall number of registered trade unions increased from 6,580 in December 2012 to 8,342 in August 2020, whereas the number of trade unions in the RMG sector grew from 132 to 945); (iii) although the rejection rate remains high it can be further reduced through training of concerned DOL officials and workers and, with support from the ILO, effort is being taken in this regard; (iv) if an application for registration is incomplete, the applicant may resubmit it after having complied with the Registrar’s observations or appeal to the Labour Court within 30 days; sometimes, instead of taking legal action, the applicants submit repeated applications which can be a cause for repeated rejection; (v) if an application is incomplete due to non-fulfilment of the requirements or lacking information and the concerned parties are not able to meet the objection raised by the Registrar within 15 days, the application will be filed without any action; (vi) there are no cases of arbitrary refusal of registration but applications can be rejected for not meeting one of the requirements set out in the BLA and the decision is communicated to the applicant by registered post; (vii) the time limit for the DOL to register a trade union was reduced from 60 to 55 days and the time limit to communicate any objection to the applicant and for the applicant to reply was reduced from 15 to 12 days (section 182(1), (2) and (4)); (viii) on the basis of 546 applications granted between March 2015 and April 2018, the average time for registration is 45 days; (ix) the provisions for online registration are not yet mandatory according to the BLA and workers require intensive training on online registration, for which a request has been submitted to the ILO, Dhaka; (x) due to the huge volume of documents that have to be submitted and considering that the online registration is not yet mandatory, the applicants and the service providers follow a combination of the manual and online systems; (xi) due to the upgrading of the software the public database on registration is currently unavailable for a limited period; (xii) once the upgrade is complete, the database will include information on applications for registration accepted and rejected, registration of sectoral and national federations and confederations, trade union-related court cases, conciliation, election of collective bargaining agents, anti-union discrimination and information on participation committees; (xiii) as for the 509 applications for registration referred to previously, they were processed manually; (xiv) trade union registration functions of the DOL have been decentralized and there are now 16 offices mandated to give registration (head office, six divisional labour offices and nine regional labour offices); and (xv) the Government has completed the upgrade of the Directorate of Labour to a Department of Labour, which has resulted in an increase of manpower from 712 to 921, a considerable increase in the DOL budget, and the creation of two additional divisional labour offices.

The Committee takes note of the detailed information provided by the Government and welcomes the increase of manpower of the DOL, as well as the decentralization of registration, which have the potential to increase the rapidity and efficiency of the registration process. The Committee observes however, that despite the Government’s efforts to simplify the process and ensure its transparency, registration seems to remain overly complicated, obliging the applicants to comply with stringent conditions and submit numerous documents, leading to the online registration not being fully functional. While duly noting the reported decrease in the rate of rejections of trade union registration applications (from 26 per cent reported in 2019 to 14 per cent reported in 2020), the Committee recalls that this number seems to refer only to the rejection of complete applications and does not include applications which the Registrar deems to be incomplete and which are then filed by the DOL without further action. The Committee also notes in this connection that, according to the ITUC, the registration process remains extremely burdensome, the SOPs fail to prevent arbitrary denial of applications, the Registrar routinely imposes conditions not based in the law or regulations and the Joint Director of Labour retains total discretionary power to refuse registration for false or fabricated reasons. In light of the above, while welcoming the decrease in the rate of rejections of trade union registration applications and noting the Government’s commitment to a further reduction in the number of rejected trade union applications, the Committee encourages the Government to continue to take all necessary measures to ensure that registration is, both in law and practice, a simple, objective, rapid and transparent process, which does not restrict the right of workers to establish organizations without previous authorization. It encourages the Government to explore, in cooperation with the social partners, concrete ways of simplifying the registration process to make it more user-friendly and accessible to all workers, as well as to provide, where necessary, training to workers on submitting complete and duly documented applications for trade union registration. It also encourages the Government to provide comprehensive training to divisional and regional officers who, following the decentralization of the registration process, are responsible for registration of trade unions, so as to ensure that they have sufficient knowledge and capacities to handle applications for registration rapidly and efficiently. While further noting the technical difficulties currently encountered, the Committee trusts that both the online registration system and the publicly available database will be fully operational in the near future so as to ensure total transparency of the registration process. Regretting that the Government fails to provide full statistics on registration, the Committee requests it once again to provide updated statistics on the overall number of applications submitted, granted, filed and rejected, disaggregated by year and sector.

Minimum membership requirements. In its previous comments, the Committee urged the Government to continue to take the necessary measures to review sections 179(2) and 179(5) of the BLA without delay, in consultation with the social partners, with a view to truly reducing the minimum membership requirement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) through the 2018 BLA amendment, the minimum membership requirement to form a trade union and maintain its registration has been reduced from 30 to 20 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment in which a union is formed; (ii) since this reduction, a total of 216 trade unions have been registered; (iii) section 179(5) of the BLA which limits the number of trade unions in an establishment or group of establishments to a maximum of three might require some time to amend; and (iv) both issues may be considered at the next revision of the BLA. While welcoming the reduction in the minimum membership requirement, the Committee observes that the 20 per cent threshold is still likely to be excessive, especially in large enterprises, and notes that, according to the ITUC, it does in practice constitute a hurdle for the workforce to organize in large companies. The Committee also observes that a trade union formed in a group of establishments (defined as more than one establishment in a particular area carrying out the same or identical industry) can only be registered if it has as members not less than 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in all establishments, an excessive requirement that unduly restricts the right of workers to establish sectoral or industry unions. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether, in handling applications for registration, the reduced minimum membership requirement is being applied even in the absence of adjustments to the Bangladesh Labour Rules (BLR) and, should this not be the case, to take the necessary steps without delay to apply these amendments so as to facilitate trade union registration and to indicate the results once it has been applied. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether the reduced minimum membership requirement has had any impact on the overall number of trade union registrations submitted and granted, especially in large enterprises. Noting the Government’s openness to further reducing the threshold, the Committee expects the Government to engage in meaningful discussions with the social partners in order to: continue to review the BLA with the aim of reducing the minimum membership requirements to a reasonable level, at least for large enterprises and trade unions in a group of establishments; amend section 179(5); and repeal section 190(f) that allows for cancellation of a trade union if its membership falls below the minimum membership requirement.

With regard to the application of the BLA to workers in the agricultural sector, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the BLA is applicable to workers engaged in commercial agricultural farms where at least five workers are employed – they can participate in trade union activities and collective bargaining – and that small agricultural farms where less than five workers are employed are characterized by low productivity and subsistence farming and generally do not express any interest in trade union activities. While noting the Government’s explanation, the Committee recalls that workers in small farms should also be allowed to form or at least join existing trade unions, even if in practice this may not result in a common occurrence. The Committee had also previously requested the Government to clarify, under this Convention and the Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (No. 11), whether Rule 167(4) of the BLR establishes a 400 minimum membership requirement to form an agricultural trade union and to provide information on its effects in practice and its impact on the right of agricultural workers to form trade union organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that workers in mechanized farms run for commercial purposes may organize according to the existing provisions of the BLA (the Government provides statistics on the number of existing trade unions in various agricultural sectors) and workers in family-based subsistence farms characterized by few workers can form groups of establishment under Rule 167(4). The Government further explains that Rule 167(4) erroneously referred to the requirement of 400 workers to form a trade union but that this requirement has been redefined through a gazette notification in January 2017. The Rule thus provides an opportunity for workers engaged in field crop production to form a group of establishments in every subdistrict or district, if there are at least five workers in each farm and a minimum of 400 workers unite (there are 18 such entities registered with the Department of Labour). According to the Government, since 77 per cent of the population lives in villages and agriculture represents the main source of livelihood, this membership requirement is not too high. Taking due note of the Government’s clarification but observing that the requirement of 400 workers to form a group of establishments in one district might still be excessive, especially considering that, in order to reach the 400 threshold, a large number of small family farms would need to unite, the Committee requests the Government to endeavour to reduce this requirement, in consultation with the social partners, to a reasonable level so as not to unduly restrict the right to organize of agricultural workers.

Articles 2 and 3. Right to organize, elect officers and carry out activities freely. Bangladesh Labour Act. In its previous comments, the Committee had urged the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to continue to review and amend a number of provisions of the BLA in order to ensure that any restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of association are in conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes the detailed information provided on tripartite consultations held before the 2018 BLA amendment, as well as the Government’s indication that reform in the labour sector has been a part of national political commitment. The Committee notes with satisfaction the following modifications introduced in the BLA: addition of section 182(7) instructing the Government to adopt SOPs for the processing of applications for registration of trade unions; repeal of section 184(2)–(4) imposing excessive restrictions on organizing in civil aviation; repeal of section 190(d) allowing cancellation of a trade union due to violation of any of the basic provisions of its constitution; repeal of section 202(22) providing for automatic cancellation of a union if, in an election for determination of collective bargaining agent, it obtains less than 10 per cent of the total votes cast; addition of section 205(12) stating that there is no requirement to form a participation committee in an establishment where there is a trade union; and addition of section 348(A) which provides for the establishment of a Tripartite Consultative Council to provide advice to the Government on matters related to law, policy and labour issues.

The Committee welcomes the clarification that workers in the informal sector do not need to provide identity cards issued by an establishment when unions apply for registration but can also use a national identity card or birth registration certificate (section 178(2)(a)(iii)), as well as the replacement of the obligation to obtain approval from the Government by an obligation to inform the Government of any funds received from any national or international source, except union dues (section 179(1)(d)). The Committee further welcomes the reduction of the requirement of support of two thirds of trade union members to call a strike to 51 per cent (section 211(1)). The Committee also notes that the 2018 amendments introduced section 196(4) providing for the adoption of SOPs for investigating unfair labour practices on the part of the workers and reduced by half the maximum prison sentence imposable on workers for a series of violations – unfair labour practices, instigation and participation in an illegal strike or a go-slow, participation in activities of unregistered trade unions and dual trade union membership (sections 291(2)–(3), 294–296, 299 and 300). However, the Committee observes that the sanctions still include imprisonment for activities that do not justify the severity of the sanction and recalls that it has been requesting the Government to eliminate such penalties from the BLA and to let the penal system address any possible criminal acts.

Taking due note of the above amendments introduced to improve compliance with the Convention, the Committee expects them to be applied in practice without delay so as to enhance the right to organize of workers and employers and requests the Government to indicate whether they are fully in force and applied or whether their application is dependent upon the issuance of a revised BLR.

The Committee regrets that many other additional changes it has been requesting for a number of years have either not been addressed or have been addressed only partially, including some that were previously announced by the Government for amendment. In this regard, the Committee emphasizes once again the need to further review the BLA to ensure its conformity with the Convention regarding the following matters: (i) scope of the law – restrictions on numerous sectors and workers remain, including, among others, Government workers, university teachers and domestic workers (sections 1(4), 2(49) and (65) and 175); (ii) one remaining restriction on organizing in civil aviation (section 184(1) – the provision should clarify that trade unions in civil aviation can be formed irrespective of whether they wish to affiliate with international federations or not); (iii) restrictions on organizing in groups of establishments (sections 179(5) and 183(1)); (iv) restrictions on trade union membership (sections 2(65), 175, 193 and 300); (v) interference in trade union activity, including cancellation of registration for reasons that do not justify the severity of the act (sections 192, 196(2)(b) read in conjunction with 190(1)(c), (e) and (g), 229, 291(2)–(3) and 299); (vi) interference in trade union elections (section 180(1)(a) read in conjunction with section 196(2)(d), and sections 180(b) and 317(4)(d)); (vii) interference in the right to draw up constitutions freely by providing overly detailed instructions (sections 179(1) and 188 (in addition, there seems to be a discrepancy in that section 188 gives the DOL the power to register and, under certain circumstances, refuse to register any amendments to the constitution of a trade union and its Executive Council whereas Rule 174 of the BLR only refers to notification of such changes to the DOL who will issue a new certificate)); (viii) excessive restrictions on the right to strike (sections 211(3)–(4) and (8) and 227(c)) accompanied by severe penalties (sections 196(2)(e), 291(2)–(3) and 294–296); and (ix) excessive preferential rights for collective bargaining agents (sections 202(24)(b), (c) and (e) and 204 (while noting the minor amendments to sections 202 and 204, the Committee notes that they do not address its concerns in that they limit the scope of action of trade unions other than the collective bargaining agents). Furthermore, the Committee previously requested the Government, under Convention No. 11, to indicate whether workers in small farms consisting of less than five workers can, in law and practice, group together with other workers to form a trade union or affiliate to existing workers’ organizations (section 1(4)(n) and (p) of the BLA).

In light of the numerous provisions mentioned above which still need to be amended to bring the BLA fully in line with the Convention, the Committee encourages the Government to engage rapidly with the Tripartite Consultative Council (TCC) referred to in section 348(A) so as to pursue the legislative review of the BLA. It requests the Government to provide information on the composition, mandate and functioning in practice of the TCC and trusts that, in the next revision of the BLA, these comments will be duly taken into account to ensure that its provisions are in full conformity with the Convention.

Bangladesh Labour Rules. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to review a number of BLR provisions to bring them in line with the Convention and trusted that during the revision process its comments would be duly taken into account. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, following the amendment of the BLA, revision of the BLR is a priority action for the Government and a tripartite committee, composed of six representatives of the Government and three representatives of workers and employers each, has already been formed for this purpose and has met on three occasions. Welcoming this information, the Committee emphasizes the need to review the BLR to align it with the 2018 amendments of the BLA, as well as regarding the following matters previously raised: (i) Rule 2(g) and (j) contains a broad definition of administrative and supervisory officers who are excluded from the definition of workers under the BLA and thus from the right to organize; (ii) Rule 85, Schedule IV, sub-rule 1(h) prohibits members of the Safety Committee from initiating or participating in an industrial dispute; Rule 169(4) limits eligibility to a trade union executive committee to permanent workers, which may adversely affect the right of workers’ organizations to elect their officers freely; (iii) Rule 188 provides for employer participation in the formation of election committees which conduct the election of worker representatives to participation committees in the absence of a union – this, according to the ITUC, could lead to management domination of participation and safety committees; the Government informs in this respect that election of worker representatives to participation committees without representation of employers is being piloted in two factories; (iv) Rule 190 prohibits certain categories of workers from voting for worker representatives to participation committees; (v) Rule 202 contains broad restrictions on actions taken by trade unions and participation committees; (vi) Rule 204, which restrictively determines that only subscription-paying workers can vote in a ballot to issue a strike, is not in line with section 211(1) of the BLA which refers to union members; (vii) Rule 350 provides for excessively broad powers of inspection of the Director of Labour; and (viii) the BLR lacks provisions providing appropriate procedures and remedies for unfair labour practice complaints. The Committee further notes, from the supplementary information provided by the Government, that the revision of the BLR, initially expected to be completed by September 2020, will be delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While taking note of the challenging context of the current pandemic, the Committee expects the revision process to be concluded without delay so as to ensure that the 2018 BLA amendments introduced to improve compliance with the Convention are reflected in the BLR and its application, and to address other pending issues, as referred to above.

Right to organize in EPZs. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to continue to revise the draft EPZ Labour Act, 2016 and 2017 in consultation with the social partners, so as to provide equal rights of freedom of association to all workers and bring the EPZs within the purview of the Ministry of Labour and the Labour Inspectorate. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the draft EPZ Labour Act was formulated after a pragmatic and neutral analysis of the socio-economic conditions of the country and went through a long process of extensive and inclusive consultations and dialogue with all levels of stakeholders, including the ILO. The Government provides detailed information on the consultations that have taken place and informs that the Bangladesh ELA, adopted in February 2019, upholds the rights and privileges of the workers and includes comprehensive changes and measurable progress. The Committee notes with satisfaction the following amendments made, which address its previous observations: simplification of the formation and registration of workers’ welfare associations (WWAs) – the institutional form given to workers’ organizations in EPZs – through amendment of a number of provisions of the draft EPZ Labour Act, 2016 and repeal of section 96 establishing an excessive referendum requirement to constitute a WWA; section 16 of the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Association and Industrial Relations Act, 2010 (EWWAIRA) prohibiting the establishment of a WWA in a new industrial unit for three months has not been included in the ELA; repeal of section 98 of the draft EPZ Labour Act prohibiting the holding of a new referendum to form a WWA during one year after a failed one; repeal of section 101 authorizing the Zone Authority to form a committee to draft a WWA constitution and to approve it; repeal of section 116 allowing deregistration of a WWA for a number of reasons, including at the request of 30 per cent of eligible workers even if they are not members of the association and prohibiting the establishment of a new association within one year after such deregistration; amendment of section 103(2) to remove the mandatory opening of election of Executive Council members to all workers and not only WWA members; repeal of section 103(5) of the draft EPZ Labour Act, 2017 restricting the right to elect and be elected to the Executive Council to workers who have worked at the enterprise for a specific period; and reduction of the requirement to issue a strike notice from three quarters of members of the Executive Council to two-thirds (section 127(2) of the ELA).

The Committee further welcomes the reduction in the minimum membership requirement to form WWAs but observes that the new requirement of 20 per cent (sections 94(2) and 97(5)) may still be excessive, especially in large enterprises, and considering that only permanent workers may apply to form a WWA. While also welcoming the addition of a provision allowing for the formation of higher-level organizations within a Zone (sections 2(50) and 113), the Committee observes that the conditions to form a federation are excessively strict – more than 50 per cent of WWAs in one Zone must agree to establish a federation – and that a WWA federation cannot affiliate or associate in any manner with another federation in another Zone or beyond the Zone (section 113(3)). In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the new amendments, in particular the reduced minimum membership requirement to form WWAs and the possibility to create federations, including to indicate the practical implications of these amendments on the number of applications for WWAs and WWA federations submitted and registered. The Committee trusts that, in order to achieve full compliance with the Convention, the Government will continue, in consultation with the social partners concerned, to endeavour to further reduce, to a reasonable level, the minimum membership requirements to form a WWA, especially in large establishments, as well as federations and to allow WWAs and federations to associate with other entities in the same Zone and outside the Zone in which they were established, including with non-EPZ workers’ organizations at different levels.

While taking due note of the above amendments and of the Government’s efforts to address some of its previous observations, the Committee deeply regrets that most of the changes it requested have not been addressed despite the Government’s assurance that it took the Committee’s observations into the highest consideration. The Committee, therefore, emphasizes once again the need to further review the ELA to ensure its conformity with the Convention regarding the following matters: (i) scope of the law – specific categories of workers continue to be excluded from the law (workers in supervisory and managerial positions – sections 2(48)) or from Chapter IX dealing with WWAs (members of the watch and ward or security staff, drivers, confidential assistants, cipher assistants, casual workers, workers employed by kitchen or food preparation contractors and workers employed in clerical posts (section 93), as well as workers in managerial positions (section 115(2)); (ii) the imposition of association monopoly at enterprise and industrial unit levels (sections 94(6), 97(5) paragraph 2, 100 and 101); (iii) detailed requirements as to the content of a WWA’s constitution which go beyond formal and may thus hinder the free establishment of WWAs and constitute interference in the right to draw up constitutions freely (section 96(2)(e) and (o)); (iv) limitative definition of the functions of WWA members despite the deletion of the word “mainly” from section 102(3); (v) prohibition to hold an election to the Executive Council during a period of six months (reduced from one year), if a previous election was ineffective in that less than half of the permanent workers of the enterprise cast a vote (section 103(2)–(3)); (vi) prohibition to function without registration and to collect funds for an unregistered association (section 111); (vii) interference in internal affairs by prohibiting expulsion of certain workers from a WWA (section 147); (viii) broad powers and interference of the Zone Authority in internal WWA affairs by approving funds from an outside source (section 96(3)), approving any amendment in a WWA constitution and Executive Council (section 99), arranging elections to the Executive Council of WWAs (section 103(1)) and approving it (section 104), ruling on the legitimacy of a transfer or termination of a WWA representative (section 121), determining the legitimacy of any WWA and its capacity to act as a collective bargaining agent (section 180(c)) and monitoring any WWA elections (section 191); (ix) interference by the authorities in internal affairs by allowing supervision of the elections to the WWA Executive Council by the Executive Director (Labour Relations) and the Inspector-General (sections 167(2)(b) and 169(2)(e)); (x) restrictions imposed on the ability to vote and on the eligibility of workers to the Executive Council (sections 103(2) and (4) and 107); (xi) legislative determination of the tenure of the Executive Council (section 105); (xii) broad definition of unfair labour practices, which also include persuasion of a worker to join a WWA during working hours or commencement of an illegal strike, and imposition of penal sanctions for their violation (sections 116(2)(a) and (f), 151(2)–(3) and 155–156); (xiii) power of the Conciliator appointed by the Zone Authority to determine the validity of a strike notice, without which a lawful strike cannot take place (section 128(2) read in conjunction with section 145(a)); (xiv) possibility to prohibit strike or lockout after 30 days or at any time if the Executive Chairman is satisfied that the continuance of the strike or lockout causes serious harm to productivity in the Zone or is prejudicial to public interest or national economy (section 131(3)–(4)); (xv) possibility of unilateral referral of a dispute to the EPZ Labour Court which could result in compulsory arbitration (sections 131(3)–(5) and 132, read in conjunction with section 144(1)); (xvi) prohibition of strike or lockout for three years in a newly established enterprise and imposition of obligatory arbitration (section 131(9)); (xvii) possibility of hiring temporary workers during a legal strike in cases where the Executive Chairman of the Zone Authority is satisfied that complete cessation of work is likely to risk causing serious damage to the machinery or installation of the industry (section 115(1)(g)); (xviii) excessive penalties, including imprisonment, for illegal strikes (sections 155 and 156); (xix) prohibition to engage in activities which are not described in the constitution as objectives of the association (section 178(1)); (xx) prohibition to maintain any linkage with any political party or organization affiliated to a political party or non-governmental organization, as well as possible cancellation of such association and prohibition to form a WWA within one year after such cancellation (section 178(2)–(3)); (xxi) cancellation of a WWA registration on grounds which do not appear to justify the severity of the sanction (sections 109(b)–(h), 178(3)); (xxii) limitation of WWA activities to the territorial limits of the enterprise thus banning any engagement with actors outside the enterprise, including for training or communication (section 102(2)) and, subject to the right to form federations under section 113, prohibition to associate or affiliate with another WWA in the same Zone, another Zone or beyond the Zone, including non-EPZ workers’ organizations at all levels (section 102(4)); (xxiii) interference in internal affairs of a WWA federation – legislative determination of the duration of a federation (four years) and determination of the procedure of election and other matters by the Zone Authority (section 113); (xxiv) power of the Government to exempt any owner, group of owners, enterprise or group of enterprises, worker or group of workers from any provision of the Act making the rule of law a discretionary right (section 184); (xxv) excessive requirements to form an association of employers (section 114(1)); (xxvi) prohibition of an employer association to associate or affiliate in any manner with another association beyond the Zone (section 114(2)); (xxvii) excessive powers of interference in employers’ associations’ affairs (section 114(3)); and (xxviii) the possibility for the Zone Authority, with the approval of the Government, to establish regulations (section 204) – these could further restrain the right of workers and their organizations to carry out legitimate trade union activities without interference. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication in its supplementary report that a committee will be formed to address the issue of any amendments to the ELA and that the necessary steps will be taken pursuant to its recommendations. The Government also informs that the Zone Authority is open to valuable suggestions, advice and technical assistance from the ILO so as to continue to improve its training programmes and to uplift workers’ rights in EPZs. Taking due note of the fact that the ELA was adopted in February 2019 and of the Government’s commitment to further improve and reform the existing provisions, but observing that an exceptionally large number of provisions still need to be repealed or substantially amended to ensure its conformity with the Convention, the Committee expects that discussion on the revision of the ELA will continue on a more urgent basis in the near future, in consultation with the social partners, so as to address the issues highlighted above (and others that may arise during discussion) in a meaningful manner and provide EPZ workers with all the rights guaranteed in the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to report in detail on progress in this regard.

The Committee further notes with interest the Government’s indication that the inspection and administration system of EPZs have been brought in line with the BLA (Chapter XIV of the ELA), that section 168 allows the Chief Inspector and other inspectors appointed under the BLA to undertake inspections of EPZs and that several joint inspections have already taken place. The Committee observes, however, that for the DIFE to inspect EPZ establishments, an approval of the Executive Chairman is required and the Chairman retains ultimate supervision of labour standards in EPZs (sections 168(1) and 180(g)), which may hinder the independent nature and proper functioning of labour inspection. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that consultations with the workers, investors and relevant stakeholders are ongoing to analyse how best the DIFE may be allied with the existing inspection system in EPZs, to develop an integrated inspection framework and to define the role of the DIFE in the factories in EPZs. Referring to its more detailed comments on this point made under Convention No. 81, the Committee encourages the Government to take steps to elaborate the aforementioned inspection framework in order to clarify the powers of the DIFE and the Zone Authority, as well as the functioning in practice of joint inspections or inspections conducted by the Labour Inspectorate of EPZ establishments. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to take further steps to ensure unrestricted access and jurisdiction over labour inspection activities in EPZs for DIFE inspectors.

Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication, in its supplementary report, that the situation of the RMG sector, which is dependent on export, is critical as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government also informs that in order to uphold labour rights, the Ministry of Labour and Employment elaborated a road map in consultation with the tripartite partners, but that due to the current pandemic, many of its initiatives destined to be implemented have now been delayed or slowed down, including the labour reform. While taking due note of the impact of the current COVID-19 pandemic on the economy of the country, in particular in the RMG sector, as well as on the Government’s efforts to pursue the labour reform, the Committee once again recalls the critical importance which it gives to freedom of association as a fundamental human and enabling right. In view of the Government’s reiterated commitment to labour reform and to ensuring protection of the rights of workers, the Committee expresses its firm hope that significant progress will be made in the very near future to bring both the legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention. The Committee reminds the Government that it can avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office should it so desire in order to assist the national tripartite dialogue in determining further areas for progress.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2022.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2019 referring to matters addressed in this comment.

The Committee notes that a complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-compliance by Bangladesh with this Convention, as well as the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), submitted by several Workers’ delegates to the 2019 International Labour Conference, was declared receivable and is pending before the Governing Body.

The Committee notes the 2018 amendment of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 (BLA) and the adoption of the 2019 Export Processing Zones Labour Act (ELA).

Civil liberties. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed deep concern at the continued violence and intimidation of workers and urged the Government to provide information on the remaining specific allegations of violence and intimidation and to take all necessary measures to prevent such incidents in the future and ensure that, if they occur, they are properly investigated. The Committee further notes the Government’s general statement that: any case of grave allegations of violence and intimidation is investigated by the Department of Police or the Ministry of Home Affairs; preventive measures have been put in place, including awareness-raising, training and seminars for police personnel on human and labour rights; and 29 committees have been formed in eight labour-intensive districts, comprised of officials from the Department of Labour (DOL) and the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE), with the aim of ensuring peaceful and congenial working conditions in ready-made garment (RMG) factories through a number of concrete activities, such as resolving adverse situations in consultation with workers’ and employers’ representatives, publicizing the helpline introduced by the DIFE, reporting to the Ministry on the prevailing labour situation, etc.

The Committee notes, however, with concern the new allegations of violent suppression by the police of several workers’ protests in 2018 and 2019 communicated by the ITUC, which denounce the use of rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons, and the raiding of homes and destruction of property, as a result of which one worker was killed and more than a hundred injured, as well as the filing of false criminal complaints against hundreds of named unionists and thousands of unnamed persons. The Committee notes the Government’s detailed reply thereto and observes that no information was provided in respect of: (i) the alleged injuries to 20 rickshaw drivers during suppression of protests in April 2018; (ii) the alleged injuries to 25 jute mill workers after dispersal of two protests in Chittagong in August 2018; (iii) the alleged injuries to ten garment workers during a protest over non-payment of wages in Gazipur in September 2018; and (iv) the alleged repression of export-processing zones (EPZs) workers for attempting to exercise their limited rights permitted under the law. In this regard, the Committee recalls once again that a truly free and independent trade union movement can only develop in a climate free from violence, pressure and threats of any kind against the leaders and members of such organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the remaining specific allegations of violence and repression, including to report on any investigations or prosecutions initiated and the results thereof.

The Committee encourages the Government to continue to provide all necessary training and awareness-raising to the police and other State agents to sensitize them about human and trade union rights with the aim of avoiding the use of excessive force and ensuring full respect for civil liberties during public assemblies and demonstrations, and requests the Government to take all necessary measures to prevent such incidents of violence and repression in the future and ensure that, if they occur, they are properly investigated.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to organize. Registration of trade unions. In its previous comment, having observed that the number of rejected applications for registration remained high, the Committee requested the Government to continue to take all necessary measures to ensure that the registration process is a simple formality; to provide updated statistics as to the overall number of applications for registration received, accepted and rejected, and to clarify the status of the 509 applications submitted through the online system, which were not granted. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) have been incorporated in the 2018 amendment of the BLA as a new section and the concerned officials received training on the subject; (ii) after the adoption of the SOPs, the success rate in union registration has increased from 65 per cent in 2017 before the adoption of the SOPs to 79.85 per cent after their adoption, 74.85 per cent in 2018 and 74 per cent up to July 2019; (iii) although the rejection rate remains high it can be further reduced through training of concerned DOL officials and workers and, with support from the ILO, effort is being taken in this regard; (iv) if an application for registration is incomplete, the applicant may resubmit it after having complied with the Registrar’s observations or appeal to the Labour Court within 30 days; sometimes, instead of taking legal action, the applicants submit repeated applications which can be a cause for repeated rejection; (v) if an application is incomplete due to non-fulfilment of the requirements or lacking information and the concerned parties are not able to meet the objection raised by the Registrar within 15 days, the application will be filed without any action; (vi) there are no cases of arbitrary refusal of registration but applications can be rejected for not meeting one of the requirements set out in the BLA and the decision is communicated to the applicant by registered post; (vii) the time limit for the DOL to register a trade union was reduced from 60 to 55 days and the time limit to communicate any objection to the applicant and for the applicant to reply was reduced from 15 to 12 days (section 182(1), (2) and (4)); (viii) on the basis of 546 applications granted between March 2015 and April 2018, the average time for registration is 45 days; (ix) the online registration system is not yet mandatory and both the service providers at the DOL and the workers require intensive training on the matter for which a request has been submitted to the ILO, Dhaka; (x) due to the huge volume of documents that have to be submitted, the applicants and the service providers follow a combination of the manual and online systems; (xi) due to administrative and technical reasons, including the upgrading of the software, neither the online registration nor the public database on registration are currently available; (xii) once the upgrade is complete, the database will include information on applications for registration accepted and rejected, registration of sectoral and national federations and confederations, trade union-related court cases, conciliation, election of collective bargaining agents, anti-union discrimination and information on participation committees; (xiii) as for the 509 applications for registration referred to previously, they were processed manually and at this stage, it is not possible to mention how many were granted; (xiv) trade union registration functions of the DOL have been decentralized and there are now 16 offices mandated to give registration (head office, six divisional labour offices and nine regional labour offices); and (xv) the Government has completed the upgrade of the Directorate of Labour to a Department of Labour, which has resulted in an increase of manpower from 712 to 921, a considerable increase in the DOL budget, and the creation of two additional divisional labour offices.

The Committee takes note of the detailed information provided by the Government and welcomes the increase of manpower of the DOL, as well as the decentralization of registration, which have the potential to increase the rapidity and efficiency of the registration process. The Committee observes however, that despite the Government’s efforts to simplify the process and ensure its transparency, registration seems to remain overly complicated, obliging the applicants to comply with stringent conditions and submit numerous documents, leading to the online registration not being fully functional. While further noting the reported increase in the rate of trade union registration, the Committee observes that the rejection rate remains high (26 per cent), especially considering that this number seems to refer only to the rejection of complete applications and does not include incomplete applications, which are filed by the DOL without further action. The Committee also notes that, according to the ITUC, the registration process remains extremely burdensome, the SOPs fail to prevent arbitrary denial of applications, the Registrar routinely imposes conditions not based in the law or regulations and the Joint Director of Labour retains total discretionary power to refuse registration for false or fabricated reasons. In light of the above and noting the Government’s commitment to a further reduction in the number of rejected trade union applications, the Committee encourages the Government to continue to take all necessary measures to ensure that registration is, both in law and practice, a simple, objective, rapid and transparent process, which does not restrict the right of workers to establish organizations without previous authorization. It invites the Government to explore, in cooperation with the social partners, concrete ways of simplifying the registration process to make it more user-friendly and accessible to all workers, as well as to provide, where necessary, training to workers on submitting complete and duly documented applications for trade union registration. It also encourages the Government to provide comprehensive training to divisional and regional officers who, following the decentralization of the registration process, are responsible for registration of trade unions, so as to ensure that they have sufficient knowledge and capacities to handle applications for registration rapidly and efficiently. While further noting the technical difficulties currently encountered, the Committee trusts that both the online registration system and the publicly available database will be fully operational in the near future so as to ensure total transparency of the registration process. Regretting that the Government fails to provide full statistics on registration, the Committee requests it once again to provide updated statistics on the overall number of applications submitted, granted, filed and rejected, disaggregated by year and sector.

Minimum membership requirements. In its previous comments, the Committee urged the Government to continue to take the necessary measures to review sections 179(2) and 179(5) of the BLA without delay, in consultation with the social partners, with a view to truly reducing the minimum membership requirement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) through the 2018 BLA amendment, the minimum membership requirement to form a trade union and maintain its registration has been reduced from 30 to 20 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment in which a union is formed; (ii) since this reduction, a total of 216 trade unions have been registered; (iii) section 179(5) of the BLA which limits the number of trade unions in an establishment or group of establishments to a maximum of three might require some time to amend; and (iv) both issues may be considered at the next revision of the BLA. While welcoming the reduction in the minimum membership requirement, the Committee observes that the 20 per cent threshold is still likely to be excessive, especially in large enterprises, and notes that, according to the ITUC, it does in practice constitute a hurdle for the workforce to organize in large companies. The Committee also observes that a trade union formed in a group of establishments (defined as more than one establishment in a particular area carrying out the same or identical industry) can only be registered if it has as members not less than 30 percent of the total number of workers employed in all establishments, an excessive requirement that unduly restricts the right of workers to establish sectoral or industry unions. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether, in handling applications for registration, the reduced minimum membership requirement is being applied even in the absence of adjustments to the Bangladesh Labour Rules (BLR) and, should this not be the case, to take the necessary steps without delay to apply these amendments so as to facilitate trade union registration and to indicate the results once it has been applied. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether the reduced minimum membership requirement has had any impact on the overall number of trade union registrations submitted and granted, especially in large enterprises. Noting the Government’s openness to further reducing the threshold, the Committee expects the Government to engage in meaningful discussions with the social partners in order to: continue to review the BLA with the aim of reducing the minimum membership requirements to a reasonable level, at least for large enterprises and trade unions in a group of establishments; amend section 179(5); and repeal section 190(f) that allows for cancellation of a trade union if its membership falls below the minimum membership requirement.

With regard to the application of the BLA to workers in the agricultural sector, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the BLA is applicable to workers engaged in commercial agricultural farms where at least five workers are employed – they can participate in trade union activities and collective bargaining – and that small agricultural farms where less than five workers are employed are characterized by low productivity and subsistence farming and generally do not express any interest in trade union activities. While noting the Government’s explanation, the Committee recalls that workers in small farms should also be allowed to form or at least join existing trade unions, even if in practice this may not result in a common occurrence. The Committee had also previously requested the Government to clarify, under this Convention and the Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (No. 11), whether Rule 167(4) of the BLR establishes a 400 minimum membership requirement to form an agricultural trade union and to provide information on its effects in practice and its impact on the right of agricultural workers to form trade union organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that workers in mechanized farms run for commercial purposes may organize according to the existing provisions of the BLA (the Government provides statistics on the number of existing trade unions in various agricultural sectors) and workers in family-based subsistence farms characterized by few workers can form groups of establishment under Rule 167(4). The Government further explains that Rule 167(4) erroneously referred to the requirement of 400 workers to form a trade union but that this requirement has been redefined through a gazette notification in January 2017. The Rule thus provides an opportunity for workers engaged in field crop production to form a group of establishments in every subdistrict or district, if there are at least five workers in each farm and a minimum of 400 workers unite (there are 18 such entities registered with the Department of Labour). According to the Government, since 77 per cent of the population lives in villages and agriculture represents the main source of livelihood, this membership requirement is not too high. Taking due note of the Government’s clarification but observing that the requirement of 400 workers to form a group of establishments in one district might still be excessive, especially considering that, in order to reach the 400 threshold, a large number of small family farms would need to unite, the Committee requests the Government to endeavor to reduce this requirement, in consultation with the social partners, to a reasonable level so as not to unduly restrict the right to organize of agricultural workers.

Articles 2 and 3. Right to organize, elect officers and carry out activities freely. Bangladesh Labour Act. In its previous comments, the Committee had urged the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to continue to review and amend a number of provisions of the BLA in order to ensure that any restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of association are in conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes the detailed information provided on tripartite consultations held before the 2018 BLA amendment, as well as the Government’s indication that reform in the labour sector has been a part of national political commitment. The Committee notes with satisfaction the following modifications introduced in the BLA: addition of section 182(7) instructing the Government to adopt SOPs for the processing of applications for registration of trade unions; repeal of section 184(2)–(4) imposing excessive restrictions on organizing in civil aviation; repeal of section 190(d) allowing cancellation of a trade union due to violation of any of the basic provisions of its constitution; repeal of section 202(22) providing for automatic cancellation of a union if, in an election for determination of collective bargaining agent, it obtains less than 10 per cent of the total votes cast; addition of section 205(12) stating that there is no requirement to form a participation committee in an establishment where there is a trade union; and addition of section 348(A) which provides for the establishment of a Tripartite Consultative Council to provide advice to the Government on matters related to law, policy and labour issues.

The Committee welcomes the clarification that workers in the informal sector do not need to provide identity cards issued by an establishment to apply for registration but can also use a national identity card or birth registration certificate (section 178(2)(a)(iii)), as well as the replacement of the obligation to obtain approval from the Government by an obligation to inform the Government of any funds received from any national or international source, except union dues (section 179(1)(d)). The Committee further welcomes the reduction of the requirement of support of two thirds of trade union members to call a strike to 51 per cent (section 211(1)). The Committee also notes that the 2018 amendments introduced section 196(4) providing for the adoption of SOPs for investigating unfair labour practices on the part of the workers and reduced by half the maximum prison sentence imposable on workers for a series of violations – unfair labour practices, instigation and participation in an illegal strike or a go-slow, participation in activities of unregistered trade unions and dual trade union membership (sections 291(2)–(3), 294–296, 299 and 300). However, the Committee observes that the sanctions still include imprisonment for activities that do not justify the severity of the sanction and recalls that it has been requesting the Government to eliminate such penalties from the BLA and to let the penal system address any possible criminal acts.

Taking due note of the above amendments introduced to improve compliance with the Convention, the Committee expects them to be applied in practice without delay so as to enhance the right to organize of workers and employers and requests the Government to indicate whether they are fully in force and applied or whether their application is dependent upon the issuance of a revised BLR.

The Committee regrets that many other additional changes it has been requesting for a number of years have either not been addressed or have been addressed only partially, including some that were previously announced by the Government for amendment. In this regard, the Committee emphasizes once again the need to further review the BLA to ensure its conformity with the Convention regarding the following matters: (i) scope of the law – restrictions on numerous sectors and workers remain, including, among others, Government workers, university teachers and domestic workers (sections 1(4), 2(49) and (65) and 175); (ii) one remaining restriction on organizing in civil aviation (section 184(1) – the provision should clarify that trade unions in civil aviation can be formed irrespective of whether they wish to affiliate with international federations or not); (iii) restrictions on organizing in groups of establishments (sections 179(5) and 183(1)); (iv) restrictions on trade union membership (sections 2(65), 175, 193 and 300); (v) interference in trade union activity, including cancellation of registration for reasons that do not justify the severity of the act (sections 192, 196(2)(b) read in conjunction with 190(1)(c), (e) and (g), 229, 291(2)–(3) and 299); (vi) interference in trade union elections (section 180(1)(a) read in conjunction with section 196(2)(d), and sections 180(b) and 317(4)(d)); (vii) interference in the right to draw up constitutions freely by providing overly detailed instructions (sections 179(1) and 188 (in addition, there seems to be a discrepancy in that section 188 gives the DOL the power to register and, under certain circumstances, refuse to register any amendments to the constitution of a trade union and its Executive Council whereas Rule 174 of the BLR only refers to notification of such changes to the DOL who will issue a new certificate)); (viii) excessive restrictions on the right to strike (sections 211(3)–(4) and (8) and 227(c)) accompanied by severe penalties (sections 196(2)(e), 291(2)–(3) and 294–296); and (ix) excessive preferential rights for collective bargaining agents (sections 202(24)(b), (c) and (e) and 204 (while noting the minor amendments to sections 202 and 204, the Committee notes that they do not address its concerns in that they limit the scope of action of trade unions other than the collective bargaining agents). Furthermore, the Committee previously requested the Government, under Convention No. 11, to indicate whether workers in small farms consisting of less than five workers can, in law and practice, group together with other workers to form a trade union or affiliate to existing workers’ organizations (section 1(4)(n) and (p) of the BLA).

In light of the numerous provisions mentioned above which still need to be amended to bring the BLA fully in line with the Convention, the Committee encourages the Government to engage rapidly with the Tripartite Consultative Council (TCC) referred to in section 348(A) so as to pursue the legislative review of the BLA. It requests the Government to provide information on the composition, mandate and functioning in practice of the TCC and trusts that, in the next revision of the BLA, these comments will be duly taken into account to ensure that its provisions are in full conformity with the Convention.

Bangladesh Labour Rules. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to review a number of BLR provisions to bring them in line with the Convention and trusted that during the revision process its comments would be duly taken into account. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, following the amendment of the BLA, revision of the BLR is a priority action for the Government and a tripartite committee, composed of six representatives of the Government and three representatives of workers and employers each, has already been formed for this purpose and has met on three occasions. Welcoming this information, the Committee emphasizes the need to review the BLR to align it with the 2018 amendments of the BLA, as well as regarding the following matters previously raised: (i) Rule 2(g) and (j) contains a broad definition of administrative and supervisory officers who are excluded from the definition of workers under the BLA and thus from the right to organize; (ii) Rule 85, Schedule IV, sub-rule 1(h) prohibits members of the Safety Committee from initiating or participating in an industrial dispute; Rule 169(4) limits eligibility to a trade union executive committee to permanent workers, which can have an impact on the right of workers’ organizations to elect their officers freely; (iii) Rule 188 provides for employer participation in the formation of election committees which conduct the election of worker representatives to participation committees in the absence of a union – this, according to the ITUC, could lead to management domination of participation and safety committees; (iv) Rule 190 prohibits certain categories of workers from voting for worker representatives to participation committees; (v) Rule 202 contains broad restrictions on actions taken by trade unions and participation committees; (vi) Rule 204, which restrictively determines that only subscription-paying workers can vote in a ballot to issue a strike, is not in line with section 211(1) of the BLA which refers to union members; (vii) Rule 350 provides for excessively broad powers of inspection of the Director of Labour; and (viii) the BLR lacks provisions providing appropriate procedures and remedies for unfair labour practice complaints. The Committee expects the revision process to be concluded without delay so as to ensure that the 2018 BLA amendments introduced to improve compliance with the Convention are reflected in the BLR and its application, and to address other pending issues, as referred to above.

Right to organize in EPZs. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to continue to revise the draft EPZ Labour Act, 2016 and 2017 in consultation with the social partners, so as to provide equal rights of freedom of association to all workers and bring the EPZs within the purview of the Ministry of Labour and the Labour Inspectorate. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the draft EPZ Labour Act was formulated after a pragmatic and neutral analysis of the socio-economic conditions of the country and went through a long process of extensive and inclusive consultations and dialogue with all levels of stakeholders, including the ILO. The Government provides detailed information on the consultations that have taken place and informs that the Bangladesh ELA, adopted in February 2019, upholds the rights and privileges of the workers and includes comprehensive changes and measurable progress. The Committee notes with satisfaction the following amendments made, which address its previous observations: simplification of the formation and registration of workers’ welfare associations (WWAs) – the institutional form given to workers’ organizations in EPZs – through amendment of a number of provisions of the draft EPZ Labour Act, 2016 and repeal of section 96 establishing an excessive referendum requirement to constitute a WWA; section 16 of the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Association and Industrial Relations Act, 2010 (EWWAIRA) prohibiting the establishment of a WWA in a new industrial unit for three months has not been included in the ELA; repeal of section 98 of the draft EPZ Labour Act prohibiting the holding of a new referendum to form a WWA during one year after a failed one; repeal of section 101 authorizing the Zone Authority to form a committee to draft a WWA constitution and to approve it; repeal of section 116 allowing deregistration of a WWA for a number of reasons, including at the request of 30 per cent of eligible workers even if they are not members of the association and prohibiting the establishment of a new association within one year after such deregistration; amendment of section 103(2) to remove the mandatory opening of election of Executive Council members to all workers and not only WWA members; repeal of section 103(5) of the draft EPZ Labour Act, 2017 restricting the right to elect and be elected to the Executive Council to workers who have worked at the enterprise for a specific period; and reduction of the requirement to issue a strike notice from three quarters of members of the Executive Council to two-thirds (section 127(2) of the ELA).

The Committee further welcomes the reduction in the minimum membership requirement to form WWAs but observes that the new requirement of 20 per cent (sections 94(2) and 97(5)) may still be excessive, especially in large enterprises, and considering that only permanent workers may apply to form a WWA. While also welcoming the addition of a provision allowing for the formation of higher-level organizations within a Zone (sections 2(50) and 113), the Committee observes that the conditions to form a federation are excessively strict – more than 50 per cent of WWAs in one Zone must agree to establish a federation – and that a WWA federation cannot affiliate or associate in any manner with another federation in another Zone or beyond the Zone (section 113(3)). In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the new amendments, in particular the reduced minimum membership requirement to form WWAs and the possibility to create federations, including to indicate the practical implications of these amendments on the number of applications for WWAs and WWA federations submitted and registered. The Committee trusts that, in order to achieve full compliance with the Convention, the Government will continue, in consultation with the social partners concerned, to endeavor to further reduce, to a reasonable level, the minimum membership requirements to form a WWA, especially in large establishments, as well as federations and to allow WWAs and federations to associate with other entities in the same Zone and outside the Zone in which they were established, including with non-EPZ workers’ organizations at different levels.

While taking due note of the above amendments and of the Government’s efforts to address some of its previous observations, the Committee regrets that most of the changes it requested have not been addressed despite the Government’s assurance that it took the Committee’s observations into the highest consideration. The Committee, therefore, emphasizes once again the need to further review the ELA to ensure its conformity with the Convention regarding the following matters: (i) scope of the law – specific categories of workers continue to be excluded from the law (workers in supervisory and managerial positions – sections 2(48)) or from Chapter IX dealing with WWAs (members of the watch and ward or security staff, drivers, confidential assistants, cipher assistants, casual workers, workers employed by kitchen or food preparation contractors and workers employed in clerical posts (section 93), as well as workers in managerial positions (section 115(2)); (ii) the imposition of association monopoly at enterprise and industrial unit levels (sections 94(6), 97(5) paragraph 2, 100 and 101); (iii) detailed requirements as to the content of a WWA’s constitution which go beyond formal and may thus hinder the free establishment of WWAs and constitute interference in the right to draw up constitutions freely (section 96(2)(e) and (o)); (iv) limitative definition of the functions of WWA members despite the deletion of the word “mainly” from section 102(3); (v) prohibition to hold an election to the Executive Council during a period of six months (reduced from one year), if a previous election was ineffective in that less than half of the permanent workers of the enterprise cast a vote (section 103(2)–(3)); (vi) prohibition to function without registration and to collect funds for an unregistered association (section 111); (vii) interference in internal affairs by prohibiting expulsion of certain workers from a WWA (section 147); (viii) broad powers and interference of the Zone Authority in internal WWA affairs by approving funds from an outside source (section 96(3)), approving any amendment in a WWA constitution and Executive Council (section 99), arranging elections to the Executive Council of WWAs (section 103(1)) and approving it (section 104), ruling on the legitimacy of a transfer or termination of a WWA representative (section 121), determining the legitimacy of any WWA and its capacity to act as a collective bargaining agent (section 180(c)) and monitoring any WWA elections (section 191); (ix) interference by the authorities in internal affairs by allowing supervision of the elections to the WWA Executive Council by the Executive Director (Labour Relations) and the Inspector-General (sections 167(2)(b) and 169(2)(e)); (x) restrictions imposed on the ability to vote and on the eligibility of workers to the Executive Council (sections 103(2) and (4) and 107); (xi) legislative determination of the tenure of the Executive Council (section 105); (xii) broad definition of unfair labour practices, which also include persuasion of a worker to join a WWA during working hours or commencement of an illegal strike, and imposition of penal sanctions for their violation (sections 116(2)(a) and (f), 151(2)–(3) and 155–156); (xiii) power of the Conciliator appointed by the Zone Authority to determine the validity of a strike notice, without which a lawful strike cannot take place (section 128(2) read in conjunction with section 145(a)); (xiv) possibility to prohibit strike or lockout after 30 days or at any time if the Executive Chairman is satisfied that the continuance of the strike or lockout causes serious harm to productivity in the Zone or is prejudicial to public interest or national economy (section 131(3)–(4)); (xv) possibility of unilateral referral of a dispute to the EPZ Labour Court which could result in compulsory arbitration (sections 131(3)–(5) and 132, read in conjunction with section 144(1)); (xvi) prohibition of strike or lockout for three years in a newly established enterprise and imposition of obligatory arbitration (section 131(9)); (xvii) possibility of hiring temporary workers during a legal strike in cases where the Executive Chairman of the Zone Authority is satisfied that complete cessation of work is likely to risk causing serious damage to the machinery or installation of the industry (section 115(1)(g)); (xviii) excessive penalties, including imprisonment, for illegal strikes (sections 155 and 156); (xix) prohibition to engage in activities which are not described in the constitution as objectives of the association (section 178(1)); (xx) prohibition to maintain any linkage with any political party or organization affiliated to a political party or non-governmental organization, as well as possible cancellation of such association and prohibition to form a WWA within one year after such cancellation (section 178(2)–(3)); (xxi) cancellation of a WWA registration on grounds which do not appear to justify the severity of the sanction (sections 109(b)–(h), 178(3)); (xxii) limitation of WWA activities to the territorial limits of the enterprise thus banning any engagement with actors outside the enterprise, including for training or communication (section 102(2)) and, subject to the right to form federations under section 113, prohibition to associate or affiliate with another WWA in the same Zone, another Zone or beyond the Zone, including non-EPZ workers’ organizations at all levels (section 102(4)); (xxiii) interference in internal affairs of a WWA federation – legislative determination of the duration of a federation (four years) and determination of the procedure of election and other matters by the Zone Authority (section 113); (xxiv) power of the Government to exempt any owner, group of owners, enterprise or group of enterprises, worker or group of workers from any provision of the Act making the rule of law a discretionary right (section 184); (xxv) excessive requirements to form an association of employers (section 114(1)); (xxvi) prohibition of an employer association to associate or affiliate in any manner with another association beyond the Zone (section 114(2)); (xxvii) excessive powers of interference in employers’ associations’ affairs (section 114(3)); and (xxviii) the possibility for the Zone Authority, with the approval of the Government, to establish regulations (section 204) – these could further restrain the right of workers and their organizations to carry out legitimate trade union activities without interference. Taking due note of the fact that the ELA was adopted in February 2019 but observing that a large number of provisions still need to be repealed or substantially amended to ensure its conformity with the Convention and taking good note of the Government’s commitment to further improve and reform the existing provisions, the Committee expects that the discussion on the revision of the ELA will continue in the near future, in consultation with the social partners, so as to address the issues highlighted above (and others that may arise during discussion) in a meaningful manner and provide EPZ workers with all the rights guaranteed in the Convention. The Committee trusts that the Government will be able to report progress in this regard.

Finally, the Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the inspection and administration system of EPZs have been brought in line with the BLA (Chapter XIV of the ELA), that section 168 allows the Chief Inspector and other inspectors appointed under the BLA to undertake inspections of EPZs and that several joint inspections have already taken place. The Committee observes, however, that for the DIFE to inspect EPZ establishments, an approval of the Executive Chairman is required and the Chairman retains ultimate supervision of labour standards in EPZs (sections 168(1) and 180(g)), which may hinder the independent nature and proper functioning of labour inspection. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that consultations with the workers, investors and relevant stakeholders are ongoing to analyse how best the DIFE may be allied with the existing inspection system in EPZs and to develop an integrated inspection framework. Referring to its more detailed comments on this point made under Convention No. 81, the Committee encourages the Government to take steps to elaborate the aforementioned inspection framework in order to clarify the powers of the DIFE and the Zone Authority, as well as the functioning in practice of joint inspections or inspections conducted by the Labour Inspectorate of EPZ establishments. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to take further steps to ensure unrestricted access and jurisdiction over labour inspection activities in EPZs for DIFE inspectors.

The Committee once again recalls the critical importance which it gives to freedom of association as a fundamental human and enabling right and, in view of the Government’s reiterated commitment to labour reform and to ensuring protection of the rights of workers, the Committee expresses its firm hope that significant progress will be made in the very near future to bring both the legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention. The Committee reminds the Government that it can avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office should it so desire in order to assist the national tripartite dialogue in determining further areas for progress.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee takes due note of the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 31 August 2017, containing the Employer statements made before the 2017 Conference Committee with regard to the individual case of Bangladesh. The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2017. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to both of these observations, as well as to those received from the ITUC in 2015 and 2016.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 106th Session, June 2017)

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2017 concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee observes that the Conference Committee called upon the Government to: (i) ensure that the Bangladesh Labour Act and the Bangladesh Labour Rules (BLR) are brought into conformity with the provisions of the Convention regarding freedom of association, paying particular attention to the priorities identified by the social partners; (ii) ensure that the draft EPZ Labour Act allows for freedom of association for workers’ and employers’ organizations and is brought into conformity with the provisions of the Convention regarding freedom of association, with consultation of the social partners; (iii) continue to investigate, without delay, all alleged acts of anti-union discrimination, including in the Ashulia area, ensure the reinstatement of those illegally dismissed, and impose fines or criminal sanctions (particularly in cases of violence against trade unionists) according to the law; and (iv) ensure that applications for union registration are acted upon expeditiously and are not denied unless they fail to meet clear and objective criteria set forth in the law. The Conference Committee also urged the Government to continue to effectively engage in ILO technical assistance to address the above recommendations and to report in detail on the measures taken to implement these recommendations to the next meeting of the Committee of Experts in November 2017.

Civil liberties. In its previous comments, having noted the serious incidents of violence, retaliation and harassment against workers alleged by the ITUC, the Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information on the outcome of investigations and trials into these allegations. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the allegations raised, as well as its general statement that all cases of alleged violence and harassment are investigated neutrally and impartially by the relevant authorities. The Committee observes, however, that the Government did not provide information on the investigations or any measures with respect to a number of specific allegations raised in the ITUC comments. The Committee further notes with concern the new allegations of arrest, detention, surveillance, violence and intimidation of workers contained in the 2017 ITUC communication. The Committee notes the Government’s comments thereto and observes that no information was provided in respect of: (i) the alleged incidents of violence, intimidation and false criminal charges against 70 union leaders and their families in May 2017 in Chittagong; and (ii) the alleged police intervention in a labour training and intimidation of its participants in January 2017. The Committee also notes the Government’s general statement that references to threats, physical assaults and other coercive measures contained in the ITUC communication are fabricated and are not based on facts. Recalling that it has been receiving serious allegations of violence against trade union members for a number of years and that allegations of systematic anti-union retaliation have also been addressed by the Committee on Freedom of Association (see 382nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, Case No. 3203, paragraphs 170–171) and discussed in the Conference Committee, the Committee expresses deep concern at the continued violence and intimidation of workers and emphasizes in this regard that a truly free and independent trade union movement can only develop in a climate free from violence, pressure and threats of any kind against the leaders and members of such organizations. The Committee urges the Government to provide information on the remaining specific allegations of violence and intimidation, including to report on prosecutions initiated, convictions obtained, and criminal sanctions imposed for any past incidents, and to take all necessary measures to prevent such incidents in the future and ensure that, if they occur, they are properly investigated.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to organize. Registration of trade unions. The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide information on the reasons for which a high number of registration applications were refused in 2016, to continue to provide statistics on the registration of trade unions and the use of the online registration application and to take measures to ensure that the registration process is a simple formality. The Committee had also recalled the recommendations of the high-level tripartite mission to devise standard operating procedures (SOPs) and to establish a public database on registration. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the registration process is clearly spelled out in the law and the reasons for rejecting an application are communicated to the applicant within 60 days; (ii) trade union registration increased remarkably after the 2013 amendment of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 (BLA) – before the amendment, there were 6,726 registered trade unions in the country and 161 federations, whereas as of July 2017, the numbers increased to a total of 7,779 registered trade unions and 175 federations, with a membership of 2,917,627 workers; (iii) in the ready-made garment (RMG) sector, 470 new trade unions and 48 federations were registered between 2013 and 2017, bringing the total number of registered trade unions to 602; (iv) since the beginning of 2017, the registration rate in Dhaka was 75 per cent; (v) the online registration system guarantees transparency and deprives the Joint Director of Labour (JDL) of any discretionary power; (vi) since March 2015, a total of 801 online applications were received through the online system, out of which 291 were granted; (vii) a public database on union registration, developed with the support of the ILO Country Office, is available on the website of the Directorate of Labour (DoL) and contains relevant information regarding registration of trade unions, including reasons for rejecting an application; (viii) as of August 2017, the information on the status of 191 applications for registration was made available in the database, out of which 129 were accepted and 62 rejected; (ix) SOPs for trade union registration, developed in consultation with the concerned stakeholders, were adopted in May 2017 and introduced specific time frames within which each step of the registration process – examination, rectification and decision – must be completed; (x) the SOPs should expedite the registration process and increase its transparency; and (xi) the JDL has already started using the SOPs and training for internal staff has begun. The Government adds that it has also initiated the upgradation of the Directorate of Labour to a Department, which will result in an increase of manpower from 712 to 921 and that this process is at the final stage pending approval by the highest authority.

The Committee takes note of the detailed information provided by the Government and notes with interest the creation of a public database on union registration and the adoption of the SOPs on registration, both of which have the potential to improve the rapidity and transparency of the registration procedure. The Committee also welcomes the envisaged increase of manpower of the DoL. While further noting the reported increase in the number of registered trade unions and federations, the Committee observes from the information provided by the Government that a mere 36 per cent of applications for registration submitted through the online registration system (291 out of 801) were accepted, whereas the status of the remaining 64 per cent is unclear, and that more than a third of the applications for registration available in the database on registration (62 out of 191) are marked as rejected without a clear indication as to the reasons. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, according to the ITUC, obstacles to registration remain: the JDL retains discretionary power to refuse registration; in 2017, 22 out of 50 applications in the RMG sector were so far rejected and in Chittagong, 15 out of 20 applications were rejected; and trade unions in many sectors face repeated refusal of registration. The Committee further observes that the Committee on Freedom of Association also examined allegations of continued arbitrary denial of trade union registrations and noted with concern the severe implications that the alleged recurrent practice of factory management to seek injunctive relief from the courts to stay union registrations that have been properly granted, thus freezing union activities for prolonged periods of time, may have on the functioning of trade unions (see 382nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, Case No. 3203, paragraphs 172–173). Observing that the number of rejected applications for registration remains high, and that a substantial proportion of rejections come without explanation, the Committee requests the Government to continue to take all necessary measures to ensure that registration is a simple, objective and transparent process, which does not restrict the right of workers to establish organizations without previous authorization. The Committee expects that the use of the SOPs, the reduction of time limits for registration and the online database will have a positive impact on the registration rate of trade unions and requests the Government to provide all relevant statistics in this regard, including the average time taken for registration. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide updated statistics as to the overall number of applications for registration (whether online or otherwise) received, accepted and/or rejected, the reasons given for all rejections, and to clarify the status of the 509 applications submitted through the online system, which were not granted.

Minimum membership requirements. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to review sections 179(2), 179(5) and 190(f) of the BLA with a view to their amendment so as to reduce the excessive 30 per cent threshold necessary for forming a union and maintaining its registration. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that workers and employers have contradictory opinions with regard to the minimum membership requirement, as a result of which the Government placed the following proposals for amendment: repeal of section 190(f) of the BLA, which allows for cancellation of a trade union if its membership falls below the minimum membership requirements, and amendment to section 179(2) according to which the minimum membership requirement for trade union registration would depend on the total number of workers employed in an establishment: if there are less than 2,000 workers in an establishment, the requirement would remain 30 per cent; for enterprises with 2,001 to 5,000 workers it would be 27 per cent; 5,001 to 7,500 workers – 24 per cent; and 7,501 workers or more – 20 per cent. While welcoming the Government’s attempt to reduce the minimum membership requirement and adapt it to the size of the enterprise, despite a lack of agreement among the social partners in this regard, the Committee regrets that the proposed amendments do not respond to its longstanding concerns and notes with concern that the minor reduction in the minimum membership requirements proposed by the Government is not likely to have an impact on a large number of enterprises and thus would not, in any meaningful manner, contribute to the free establishment of workers’ organizations. The Committee therefore urges the Government to continue to take the necessary measures to review sections 179(2) and 179(5) of the BLA without delay, in consultation with the social partners, with a view to truly reducing the minimum membership requirement. The Committee expects that the Government will engage in meaningful discussions with the social partners and that it will be able to report progress in this regard in the near future, in particular on any new proposals for reducing the minimum membership requirements. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the approximate number of enterprises falling within each of the mentioned enterprise categories for the purpose of establishing adequate minimum membership requirement and to indicate the sectors in which they operate.

The Committee had also previously requested the Government to clarify whether Rule 167(4) of the BLR establishes a minimum membership requirement of 400 workers to establish an agricultural trade union, and if so, to align it with the BLA and in any event, to lower it to ensure conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Rule 167(4) sets the requirement to form a trade union to 400 farm workers but that this issue has been resolved through a gazette notification dated 5 January 2017. Observing that it is unclear from the Government’s comments whether the requirement of 400 workers was repealed or lowered, the Committee requests the Government to clarify this point and to provide a copy of the gazette notification.

Articles 2 and 3. Right to organize, elect officers and carry out activities freely. Bangladesh Labour Act. In its previous comments, the Committee had urged the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary measures to review and amend a number of provisions of the BLA to ensure their conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that while the newly established Tripartite Technical Committee (TTC) met on several occasions to make suggestions on the possible amendment of the BLA, the latter being applicable to a large number of sectors, broad consultations with stakeholders are necessary and certain provisions are thus still under examination. The Government adds that a special committee headed by a senior government official was also established to coordinate and give suggestions for the final approval of amendments to the BLA and the draft Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Labour Act (EPZ Labour Act). The Government states that in November 2017, a further tripartite committee for amendment of the BLA was formed by the Ministry of Labour and Employment (MOLE) and prepared a report with recommendations on how to address the pending ILO observations. The Committee welcomes the Government’s efforts to review the BLA and notes the following proposed amendments: extension of the scope of the Act to certain industries previously excluded from it (repeal of clauses (e), (h) and (n) of section 2(4)); broadening of the definition of worker to include members of the watch and ward staff, firefighting staff and confidential assistant of any establishment (deletion of the corresponding restriction from section 175); clarification that workers in the informal sector do not need to provide identity cards issued by an establishment to apply for registration (section 178(2)(a)(iii)); replacement of the obligation to obtain approval from the Government by an obligation to inform the Government of any funds received from any national or international source, except the union dues (section 179(1)(d)); reduction of the time limit for the DoL to register a trade union (section 182(1), (2) and (4)); addition of section 182(7) instructing the Government to adopt SOPs for the registration of trade unions; repeal of section 184(2)–(4) and amendment of section 185 which impose excessive restrictions on organizing in civil aviation and for seafarers, including trade union monopoly; deletion of the possibility for the DoL to cancel trade union registration if it has been obtained by fraud or misinterpretation of facts (repeal of section 190(1)(c)); deletion of the possibility to cancel a trade union if, in an election for determination of collective bargaining agent, it obtains less than 10 per cent of the total votes cast (repeal of section 202(22)); and repeal of section 211(8) prohibiting strikes in an establishment for a period of three years from the commencement of its production.

While taking due note of these proposed amendments, the Committee observes that many of the changes it has been requesting for a number of years have either not been addressed or addressed only partially. In this regard, the Committee emphasizes once again the need to further review the BLA to ensure its conformity with the Convention regarding the following matters: (1) scope of the law – restrictions on numerous sectors and workers remain (sections 1(4), 2(49) and (65) and 175); (2) restriction on organizing in civil aviation (section 184(1)); (3) restrictions on organizing in groups of establishments (sections 179(5) and 183(1)); (4) restrictions on trade union membership (sections 2(65), 175, 193 and 300); (5) interference in trade union activity (sections 196(2)(a) and (b), 190(1)(d)–(e) and (g), 192, 229, 291 and 299); (6) interference in trade union elections (section 180(1)(a) read in conjunction with section 196(2)(d), and sections 180(b) and 317(4)(d)); (7) interference in the right to draw up constitutions freely (sections 179(1) and 188 (in addition, there seems to be a discrepancy as section 188 gives the DoL the power to register and, under certain circumstances, refuse to register any amendments to the Constitution of a trade union and its Executive Council whereas Rule 174 of the BLR only refers to notification of such changes to the DoL who will issue a new certificate)); (8) excessive restrictions on the right to strike (sections 211(1) and (3)–(4) and 227(c)) accompanied by severe penalties (sections 196(2)(e), 291(2)–(3) and 294–296); and (9) excessive preferential rights for collective bargaining agents (sections 202(24)(c) and (e) and 204). While further noting that the proposed amendments would decrease by half the maximum prison sentence imposable on workers for a series of violations – unfair labour practices, instigation and participation in an illegal strike or a go-slow and for participation in activities of unregistered trade unions (sections 291(2)–(3), 294–296 and 299) – the Committee recalls that it has been requesting the Government to eliminate such penalties from the BLA and to let the penal system address any possible criminal acts. The Committee also notes that the proposed amendment to section 210(10)–(12), which would enable the Conciliator to refer an industrial dispute to an arbitrator even if the parties do not agree, could result in compulsory arbitration contrary to the Convention. In view of the above and recalling the conclusions of the Conference Committee, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to continue to review and amend the relevant provisions of the BLA in order to ensure that any restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of association are in conformity with the Convention. The Committee firmly hopes that the Government will be able to report progress in this regard in the near future.

Bangladesh Labour Rules. The Committee had previously requested the Government to review the following BLR provisions so as to ensure that workers’ organizations are neither restricted nor are subject to interference in the exercise of their activities and internal affairs, that unfair labour practices are effectively prevented and that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, may participate in the election of representatives: Rule 188 (employer participation in the formation of election committees which conduct the election of worker representatives to participation committees in the absence of a union); Rule 190 (prohibition on certain categories of workers to vote for worker representatives to participation committees); Rule 202 (general restrictions on actions taken by trade unions and participation committees); Rule 350 (broad powers of inspection of the DoL); lack of provisions providing appropriate procedures and remedies for unfair labour practice complaints; as well as the possible impact of Rule 169(4), which limits eligibility to the union executive committee to permanent workers, on the right of workers’ organizations to elect their officers freely. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that since the BLA is under review, further amendments to the BLR may also be necessary. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that that SOPs on unfair labour practices and anti-union discrimination were recently adopted to facilitate the handling and investigation of such allegations in a transparent manner and that the outcome of the investigations is available in a public database (this point is examined in more detail in the Committee’s comments on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98)). The Committee further notes that, as indicated by the ITUC, Rule 2 contains a broad definition of administrative and supervisory officers who are excluded from the BLA; Rule 85, Schedule IV, sub-rule 1(h) prohibits members of the Safety Committee from initiating or participating in an industrial dispute; and Rule 204 determines that only subscription-paying workers can vote in a ballot to issue a strike, whereas section 211(1) of the BLA refers to union members. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the rights under the Convention are granted to all workers without distinction or discrimination of any kind, including managerial and supervisory staff, and that matters of internal administration should be left to the discretion of the members of the trade union without any intervention by the public authorities. In the absence of any changes made to the mentioned provisions and recalling that the Conference Committee called upon the Government to ensure that the Bangladesh Labour Rules are brought into conformity with the Convention, the Committee reiterates its previous request and expects that during the revision process of the BLR, which should involve the social partners, its comments will be duly taken into account.

Right to organize in export processing zones (EPZs). In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to revise the draft EPZ Labour Act so as to provide equal rights of freedom of association to all workers and bring the EPZs within the purview of the labour inspectorate. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the draft EPZ Labour Act was recalled from Parliament for a thorough review to align it with core ILO Conventions and that the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (Zone Authority) conducted a number of meetings, as a result of which Chapters IX, X and XV have been redrafted through tripartite consultations on the basis of ILO observations, as well as comments of collective bargaining agents and investors. The Government further indicates that some requested amendments were not taken into account due to the concerns raised by workers and investors and informs that: (i) both workers and investors agree that to ensure harmonious industrial relations in EPZs only one Workers’ Welfare Association (WWA) should be formed within a company – as of November 2017, WWAs have been formed and are active in 74 per cent of eligible enterprises; (ii) a provision allowing formation of higher-level organizations through affiliation of WWAs within a Zone will be incorporated in the redrafted EPZ Labour Act, even though no WWA has expressed an interest in this respect and no practical effectiveness has been found of such further affiliation; (iii) to avoid any unrest relating to workers’ benefits which vary from enterprise to enterprise, WWA activities should be kept within the territorial limit of the enterprise; (iv) both workers and investors considered it necessary to include a provision in the law enabling the Zone Authority to approve funds from outside the Zone so as to prevent funding for illegal and subversive activities, but funds from any legal source for the welfare of workers are never denied; (v) since a WWA is the collective bargaining agent for the whole industrial unit where it was created, election of its Executive Council is open to all workers and not only WWA members; (vi) although employers and investors in EPZs are not interested in forming higher-level organizations, their associations are allowed to do so through affiliation among themselves; (vii) the Zone Authority developed its own mechanism of labour inspection, which is effective, transparent, accountable and scalable and also assists workers and employers to solve disputes through the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) method; (viii) through massive structural changes, the administration system of the EPZs has been brought in line with the BLA and, similarly as under the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE), an Additional Secretary of the Government will be the Inspector General; (ix) training programmes can be arranged to exchange information and technical know-how between the DIFE and the Zone Authority; and (x) both workers and investors are satisfied with the inspection and administration system of the EPZs and involvement of another authority could create dual administration issues, confusion among the parties and even unrest (234 WWAs and 335 investors provided their observations in writing regarding imposition of inspection other than the one conducted by the Zone Authority). The Committee welcomes the Government’s efforts to align the draft EPZ Labour Act with the BLA and notes some of the proposed amendments, including simplification of the formation and registration of WWAs through the repeal of section 96(2)–(3) establishing an excessive referendum requirement to constitute a WWA; repeal of section 98 prohibiting to hold a new referendum to form a WWA during one year after a failed one; repeal of sections 99(2) and 101 authorizing the Zone Authority to form a committee to draft a WWA constitution and to approve it; and repeal of section 115(1) allowing for deregistration of a WWA at the request of 30 per cent of eligible workers even if they are not members of the association and of section 115(5) prohibiting the establishment of a new association within one year after such deregistration. The Committee further welcomes the Government’s indication that a provision allowing for the formation of higher-level organizations within a Zone will be incorporated in the redrafted EPZ Labour Act. The Committee however recalls that to ensure full conformity with the Convention, it is also necessary to enable associations to affiliate beyond the Zone and engage with actors outside their Zone and enterprise. Therefore the Committee encourages the Government to add this to the list of proposed amendments (section 102(2) of the draft EPZ Labour Act currently restricts WWA activities to the territorial limits of the enterprise thus banning any engagement with actors outside the enterprise, including for training or communication, and section 102(4) prohibits association or affiliation with another WWA in the same Zone, another Zone or beyond the Zone and thus to form higher-level organizations).

The Committee regrets, moreover, that many changes requested by the Committee are still not addressed by the proposed amendments and emphasizes the need to further review the 2016 draft EPZ Labour Act to ensure its conformity with the Convention regarding the following matters: (1) scope of the law – specific categories of workers continue to be excluded from the law (workers in supervisory and managerial positions – section 2(49)) or from Chapter IX dealing with WWAs (members of the watch and ward, drivers, confidential assistants, cipher assistants, casual workers, workers employed by kitchen or food preparation contractors and workers employed in clerical posts – section 93); (2) excessive minimum membership requirement to create a WWA – 30 per cent of eligible workers of the industrial unit have to demand formation of a WWA (sections 94(2) and 97(5)); (3) the imposition of association monopoly at enterprise and industrial unit levels (sections 94(6), 97(5), paragraph 2, (6)–(7), 100 and 101); (4) detailed requirements as to the content of the WWA’s constitution which go beyond formal and may thus hinder the free establishment of the WWAs and constitute interference in the right to draw up constitutions freely (section 96(2)(e)–(f) and (p)); (5) limitative definition of the main functions of WWA members (section 102(3)); (6) prohibition to function without registration and to collect funds for such association (section 111); (7) interference in internal affairs by prohibiting expulsion of certain workers from a WWA (section 146); (8) broad powers and interference of the Zone Authority in internal union affairs by approving funds from an outside source (section 96(3)), approving any amendment in a WWA Constitution and Executive Council (section 99), arranging elections to the Executive Council of WWAs (section 103(1)) and approving it (section 104), determining the legitimacy of any WWA and its capacity to act as a collective bargaining agent (section 175(c)) and monitoring any WWA elections (section 185(1)); (9) interference in the election of officers through a mandatory opening of election of Executive Council members to all workers and not only WWA members (section103(2)); (10) only workers having worked during a specific period of time at the enterprise can elect and be elected to the Executive Council (section 103(5)(b)–(d)); (11) restrictions imposed on the eligibility of workers to the Executive Council (section 107); (12) prohibition to hold an election to the Executive Council during a period of one year, if a previous election was ineffective in that less than half of the eligible workers cast a vote (section 103(2)); (13) legislative determination of the tenure of the Executive Council (section 105); (14) broad definition of unfair labour practices, which also include participation in any WWA activities without permission from the employer, and imposition of penal sanctions for their violation (sections 115(1), 115(2)(a) and (f), 150(2)–(3)); (15) excessive requirement to issue a strike notice (consent of three-quarters of members of the Executive Council – section 126(2)); (16) power of the Conciliator appointed by the Zone Authority to determine the validity of a strike notice, without which a lawful strike cannot take place (section 127(2)); (17) possibility to prohibit strike or lockout after 30 days or at any time if the continuance of the strike or lockout causes serious harm to productivity in the Zone or is prejudicial to public interest or national economy (section 130(3)–(4)); (18) possibility of unilateral referral of a dispute to the EPZ Labour Court which could result in compulsory arbitration (sections 130(3)–(5) and 143); (19) prohibition of strike or lockout for three years in a newly established enterprise and imposition of obligatory arbitration (section 130(9)); (20) possibility to hire temporary workers during a legal strike in cases where the Executive Chairman of the Zone Authority is satisfied that complete cessation of work is likely to have the risk of causing serious damage to the machinery or installation of the industry (section 114(1)(g)); (21) excessive penalties, including imprisonment, for illegal strikes (sections 154 and 155); (22) prohibition of activities not within the aims and objects of the association as specified in its Constitution and prohibition to form or maintain any linkage with any political party or any non-governmental organization, as well as possible cancellation of such association and prohibition to form a WWA within one year after such cancellations (section 173(1)–(3)); (23) cancellation of a WWA on grounds which do not appear to justify the severity of the sanction (sections 109(1)(c)–(h), 173(3)); (24) power of the Government to exempt any owner, group of owners, enterprise or worker from any provision of the Act making the rule of law a discretionary right (section 179); (25) excessive requirements to form an association of employers (section 113(1)); (26) prohibition of an employer association to associate or affiliate in any manner with another association (section 113(2)); and (27) excessive powers of interference in employers’ associations’ affairs (section 113(3)). The Committee also notes that section 198 provides the possibility for the Zone Authority, with the approval of the Government, to establish regulations, which could further restrain the right of workers and their organizations to carry out legitimate trade union activities without interference. The Committee further recalls its previous comments that Chapter XIV (previously Chapter XV) on administration and labour inspection runs counter to the notion of an independent public authority to apply the laws fairly. Finally, the Committee notes that while according to the information provided by the Government to the Conference Committee, administration and inspection of factories in EPZs would fall under the BLA, the information provided in the Government’s report suggests that despite structural changes being made, the administration and inspection in the EPZs will remain separate from those under the BLA. Observing that a very large number of provisions would need to be repealed or substantially amended to ensure the compatibility of the draft EPZ Labour Act with the Convention and recalling the conclusions of the Conference Committee, the Committee requests the Government to continue to review the draft EPZ Labour Act, in consultation with the social partners, to address all the issues highlighted above and to bring the EPZs within the purview of the Ministry of Labour and the Labour Inspectorate.

The Committee once again recalls the critical importance which it gives to freedom of association as a fundamental human and enabling right. In view of the Government’s commitment to uphold the workers’ rights to freedom of association and their right to strike for realizing their legal demands, expressed at the Conference Committee, the Committee expresses its firm hope that significant progress will be made in the very near future to bring the legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention.

Noting the Government’s request for additional assistance in strengthening its capacity to improve industrial relations at the enterprise level and to provide training for EPZ industrial relations officers and counsellors-cum-inspectors, the Committee hopes that the Office will continue to provide all technical support needed in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee takes note of the observations provided by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received on 1 September 2016, which are of a general nature. The Committee notes the observations from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2016. The Committee takes notes of the response of the Government to the 2015 ITUC observations and requests the Government to provide its comments on the latest ITUC communication with regard to issues covered by the Convention.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 105th Session, May–June 2016)

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2016 concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee observes that the Conference Committee urged the Government to: (i) undertake amendments to the 2013 Labour Act to address the issues relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining identified by the Committee of Experts, paying particular attention to the priorities identified by the social partners; (ii) ensure that the law governing the export processing zones (EPZs) allows for full freedom of association, including the ability to form employers’ and workers’ organizations of their own choosing, and to allow workers’ organizations to associate with workers’ organizations outside the EPZs; (iii) investigate as a matter of urgency all acts of anti-union discrimination, ensure the reinstatement of those illegally dismissed, and impose fines or criminal sanctions (particularly in cases of violence against trade unionists) according to the law; and (iv) ensure that applications for union registration are acted upon expeditiously and are not denied unless they fail to meet clear and objective criteria set forth in the law. The Conference Committee also invited the Government to implement the recommendations of the 2016 high-level tripartite mission together with the social partners. The Committee also takes note of the report of the high-level tripartite mission.

Civil liberties. In its previous comment, the Committee expressed trust that all perpetrators and instigators responsible for violence against trade unionists would be identified, brought to trial and punished so as to prevent the repetition of such acts, and requested the Government to provide information on the outcome of the ongoing trials and investigations, including in relation to the 2012 murder of a trade unionist and the alleged violence against the secretary-general of another trade union. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that any reported case of violence against trade unionists is handled by law enforcement agencies in line with the national legislation, but that in situations of violence or vandalism public and private property must be protected and those involved in such acts must be interrogated. The Government adds that measures are taken during such proceedings to avoid any form of harassment or disruption of trade union activities. The Committee regrets that, despite having replied to the 2015 ITUC observations, the Government does not address the specific incidents of violence against trade unionists alleged therein and fails to provide concrete information on the results of investigations or proceedings in this regard, including in relation to the 2012 murder of a trade unionist. The Committee further notes with concern the new allegations of specific incidents of violence and use of force against trade unionists in the latest ITUC communication, as well as its general allegations that since 2013, trade union leaders have suffered violent retaliation by their employers, have been harassed and intimidated and that the police routinely fail to carry out credible investigations into such cases of anti-union violence. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the outcome of investigations and trials into serious allegations of violence and harassment, including those reported by the ITUC in its 2015 and 2016 communications.

In its previous comment, the Committee also noted the development of a helpline for submission of labour-related complaints targeting the ready-made garment (RMG) sector in the Ashulia area and requested the Government to provide further information on its expansion into other geographical areas and statistics on its use, the precise nature of the follow-up to calls and the number of cases resolved. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that between December 2015 and May 2016, a total of 490 complaints were received through the helpline from RMG sector workers in the targeted area. The Government adds that many complaints were also received from other geographical areas and industrial sectors and that the operation of the helpline should be expanded to all sectors. Welcoming this information, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on further expansion of the helpline, as well as statistics on its use, including the precise nature of the follow-up to calls, the number and nature of investigations undertaken and violations found and the number of cases resolved.

Article 2 of the Convention. The right to organize. Registration of trade unions. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed trust that the online registration system would facilitate resolution of registration applications expeditiously and requested the Government to continue to provide statistics on the registration of trade unions and the specific legislative obstacles invoked for causes of denial. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the amendment of the Bangladesh Labour Act (BLA) in 2013 simplified the registration process and, up to August 2016, a total of 960 new trade unions have been registered, out of which 385 in the RMG sector, and 21 new trade union federations until August 2016; (ii) from March 2015, when the online registration system was introduced, a total of 512 online applications were received; and (iii) in 2016, the percentage of successful registration applications amounted to 58 per cent in the Dhaka Division and 38 per cent in the Chittagong Division, which presented an increase in comparison to previous years. While taking due note of the reported increase in the percentage of trade unions registered in 2016, the Committee observes that according to this information almost half of trade union applications in the Dhaka Division and almost three quarters of applications in the Chittagong Division have been rejected over the past year. Furthermore, the Committee notes that according to the ITUC, the approval of trade union applications remains at the absolute discretion of the Joint Director of Labour (JDL) and, even when registration is granted, factory management often seeks injunctive relief from courts to stay union registration, thus freezing union activity for several months pending the final hearing on the issue. The Committee also observes that the high-level tripartite mission, which visited Bangladesh in April 2016, noted that the procedure for registration of trade unions and its practical application were heavily bureaucratic and had the likelihood of discouraging trade union registration and of intimidating workers, especially the extensive steps taken by the Ministry of Labour and Employment with respect to name verification (comparison of signatures in the registration application and the employers’ list of workers, as well as individual interviews with workers to verify authenticity of their signatures). The report of the mission further observed that the combination of the broad discretionary powers of the JDL when processing applications for registration, the lack of transparency on the reasons for rejection and delays in judicial proceedings have led to an increased rejection of registration requests and a decreasing registration of trade unions over the past few years. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the reasons for which such a high number of registration applications were refused in 2016 and to continue to provide statistics on the registration of trade unions and the use of the online registration application. The Committee further requests the Government to take any necessary measures to ensure that the registration process is a simple formality, which should not restrict the right of workers to establish organizations without previous authorization. In this regard, it recalls the recommendations of the high-level tripartite mission that invited the Government to devise standard operating procedures to render the registration process a simple formal requirement not subjected to discretionary authority and to establish a public database on registration to improve transparency in handling registration applications. The Committee trusts that when taking measures to facilitate the registration process, the Government will take fully into account the Committee’s comments, as well as the conclusions of the Conference Committee and the high-level tripartite mission.

Minimum membership requirements. As regards the existing 30 per cent of the enterprise minimum membership requirement in the BLA, the Committee requested the Government to review sections 179(2), 179(5) and 190(f) of the BLA with the social partners with a view to their amendment and to provide information on the progress made in this regard. Regretting the absence of Government information on this point, the Committee must again recall its deep concern that workers are still obliged to meet this excessive requirement for initial and continued union registration; and that unions whose membership falls below this number will be deregistered. Emphasizing that such a high threshold for merely being able to form a union and maintain registration violates the right of all workers, without distinction whatsoever, to form and join organizations of their own choosing provided under Article 2 of the Convention, the Committee reiterates its previous request to the Government.

The Committee also noted that Rule 167(4) of the Bangladesh Labour Rules appeared to introduce a new minimum membership requirement of 400 workers to establish an agricultural trade union, a requirement which was not set out in the BLA itself. It therefore requested the Government to clarify the implications of this Rule and, if it was shown that it restricted the right to organize of agricultural workers, to modify the Rule so as to align it with the BLA and in any case to lower the requirement to ensure conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the 2013 amendment of the BLA provided agricultural workers the right to form trade unions and that Rule 167(4) is applicable to workers engaged in field crop production who can form groups of establishments. According to the Government, any inconsistency with the Convention can be corrected through consultation with the stakeholders. The Committee requests the Government once again to clarify whether Rule 167(4) of the Bangladesh Labour Rules establishes a minimum membership requirement of 400 workers, and if so, to align it with the BLA and in any event lower it to ensure conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to report on all developments in this regard.

Articles 2 and 3. Right to organize, elect officers and carry out activities freely. For a number of years, the Committee had requested the Government to review the following provisions of the BLA to ensure that restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of association and related industrial activities are in conformity with the Convention and to indicate steps taken to this effect: scope of the law (sections 1(4), 2(49) and (65), and 175); restrictions on organizing in civil aviation and for seafarers (sections 184(1), (2) and (4), and 185(3)); restrictions on organizing in groups of establishments (section 183(1)); restrictions on trade union membership (sections 2(65), 175, 185(2), 193 and 300); interference in trade union activity (sections 196(2)(a) and (b), 190(e) and (g), 192, 229(c), 291 and 299); interference in trade union elections (sections 196(2)(d) and 317(d)); interference in the right to draw up their constitutions freely (section 179(1)); excessive restrictions on the right to strike (sections 211(1), (3), (4) and (8), and 227(c)), accompanied by severe penalties (sections 196(2)(e), 291, and 294–296); excessive preferential rights for collective bargaining agents (sections 202(24)(c) and (e), and 204); and cancellation of trade union registration (section 202(22)) as well as excessive penalties (section 301). The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has once again failed to provide information on the steps taken to review the abovementioned provisions of the BLA and notes that the Government simply indicates that the review of the BLA in 2013 involved tripartite consultations with workers and employers, as well as the ILO, and that both the BLA and the Bangladesh Labour Rules were framed in a manner to better fit the socio-economic conditions of the country. The Committee, also noting the conclusions of the Conference Committee, urges the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to review and amend the mentioned provisions to ensure that restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of association are in conformity with the Convention.

Bangladesh Labour Rules. In its previous comment, the Committee also raised a number of issues concerning the conformity of the Bangladesh Labour Rules with the Convention. The Committee noted with concern that Rule 188 provided a role for the employer in the formation of the election committees to conduct the election of worker representatives to participation committees in the absence of a union. The Committee also noted that Rule 202 restricted, in a very general manner, the actions that can be taken by trade unions and participation committees, and that there was no rule providing appropriate procedures and remedies for unfair labour practice complaints. Observing the Government’s commitments undertaken within the framework of the implementation of the European Union, United States and Bangladesh Sustainability Compact, the Committee requested the Government to indicate steps taken to ensure that workers’ organizations were not restricted in the exercise of their internal affairs and that unfair labour practices were effectively prevented. The Committee also requested the Government to clarify the impact of Rule 169(4) (eligibility for membership to the union executive committee), which refers to the notion of permanent workers, on the right of workers’ organizations to elect their officers freely. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that its commitments undertaken within the Sustainability Compact are regularly monitored and that any intervention in the exercise of internal affairs or unfair labour practices is notified immediately. The Committee also notes, as indicated by the ITUC, that Rule 190 prohibits casual workers, apprentices, seasonal and subcontracted workers from voting for the worker representatives to participation committees, and Rule 350 gives the Director of Labour broad powers to enter union offices to inspect the premises, books and records and to question any person about the fulfilment of the union’s objectives. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the rights under the Convention are granted to all workers without distinction or discrimination of any kind, including to apprentices, temporary and subcontracted workers; and that the autonomy, financial independence, protection of the assets and property of organizations are essential elements of the right to organize administration in full freedom (supervision is compatible with the Convention only when it is limited to the obligation of submitting annual financial reports, verification based on serious grounds to believe that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law and verification called for by a significant number of workers; it would be incompatible with the Convention if the law gave authorities powers to control which go beyond these principles, or which over-regulate matters that should be left to the trade unions themselves and their bylaws – see General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 109–110). In the absence of concrete information from the Government on the issues raised, the Committee requests the Government to undertake any necessary measures to ensure that, under the Bangladesh Labour Rules, workers’ organizations are neither restricted nor subject to interference in the exercise of their activities and internal affairs, that unfair labour practices are effectively prevented and that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, may participate in the election of representatives.

Article 5. The right to form federations. The Committee had previously noted the Government’s indication that section 200(1) of the BLA, which sets the requirement of the minimum number of trade unions to form a federation to five, was a result of tripartite consensus and requested the Government to provide information on the right of trade unions to form federations, including on the number of federations formed since the amendment of the BLA and as to whether any complaints have been made in relation to the impact that this provision has had on the right of workers’ organizations to form the federation of their own choosing. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that since the amendment of the BLA in 2013 until August 2016, 21 new trade union federations have been registered.

Right to organize in EPZs. In its previous comments, the Committee urged the Government once again to resubmit the law governing the EPZs for full consultations with the workers’ and employers’ organizations in the country with a view to enacting new legislation for the EPZs in the near future, which would be fully in conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) up until June 2016, out of 409 eligible enterprises in the EPZs, referendums were held in 304 enterprises, and workers in 225 enterprises opted to form a workers’ welfare association (WWA); (ii) WWAs are actively performing as collective bargaining agents and from January 2013 to December 2015 submitted 260 charters of demands, which were all settled amicably and concluded by the signing of agreements; (iii) after a wide range of consultations with the elected worker representatives in the EPZs, investors and other relevant stakeholders, adoption of a comprehensive Bangladesh EPZ Labour Act is at the final stage – the draft Act was approved by the Cabinet and is in the process of adoption by Parliament; and (iv) the opinions put forward by the social partners were addressed within the limits of the socio-economic conditions in the country in conformity with international labour standards. While recognizing that the draft EPZ Labour Act represents an effort to provide the zones with protection similar to that provided outside the zones and in many areas reproduces the provisions of the BLA, the Committee observes that the sections concerning freedom of association and unfair labour practices mainly transpose into the draft the EPZ Workers’ Association and Industrial Relations Act (EWWAIRA) of 2010, which has been addressed by this Committee for a number of years due to its non-conformity with the Convention and that, according to the ITUC, workers’ representatives were not consulted in the process. Further observing that the scheme of industrial relations in the EPZs is more restrictive than the one outside the zones under the BLA, the Committee notes that the following provisions of the draft EPZ Labour Act are not in conformity with the Convention: the imposition of a trade union monopoly at enterprise and industrial unit levels (sections 94(2) and 106); excessive minimum membership and referendum requirements to create a WWA – 30 per cent of workers have to demand formation of a WWA, 50 per cent of eligible workers have to cast a vote in the referendum and more than 50 per cent of the votes cast must be in favour of formation of a WWA (sections 95(1), 96(2)–(3)); prohibition to establish a WWA during one year after a failed referendum (section 98); interference of the Zone Authority in internal union affairs: formation of a committee to draft the constitution (section 99(2)); approval of funds from an outside source (section 100(2)); approval of WWAs constitutions (section 101); organization and conduct of elections to the Executive Council of WWAs (sections 97(1) and 109(1)); approval of the Executive Council (section 110), and determination of the legitimacy of a WWA (section 119(c)); restriction of WWA activities to zones thus banning any engagement with actors outside the zones, including for training or communication (section 108(2)); legislative determination of the tenure of the Executive Council (section 111); elimination of the possibility for WWAs to join together in a federation (section 108(3) and the deletion of previous draft section 113); possibility to deregister a WWA at the request of 30 per cent of eligible workers even if they are not members of the association (section 115(1)); prohibition to establish WWAs during one year after the deregistration of a previous WWA (section 115(5)); cancellation of a WWA on grounds which do not appear to justify the severity of the sanction (section 116(1)(c) and (e)–(h)); prohibition to function without registration (section 118); prohibition of strike or lock-out for four years in a newly established industrial unit and imposition of obligatory arbitration (section 135(9)); excessive penalties, including imprisonment, for illegal strikes (sections 160(1) and 161); severe restrictions on the exercise of the right to strike – possibility to prohibit strike or lock-out after 15 days or at any time if the continuance of the strike or lock-out causes serious harm to productivity in the Zone or is prejudicial to public interest or national economy (section 135(3)(4)); prohibition of activities not specified in the Constitution and prohibition of any connection with any political party or any non-governmental organization (section 177(1)–(2)); the power of the Zone Authority to exempt any employer from the provisions of the Act making the rule of law a discretionary right (section 182); excessive requirements to form an association of employers (section 121); prohibition of an employer association to maintain any relation with another association in another zone or beyond the zone (section 121(2)); and excessive powers of interference in employers’ associations’ affairs (section 121(3)). The Committee also notes that section 199 provides the possibility for the Zone Authority to establish regulations, which may further restrain the right of workers and their organizations to carry out legitimate trade union activities without interference, and that Chapter XV on administration and labour inspection, including the maintenance of counsellor-cum-inspector under the supervision of the Zone Authority, run counter to the notion of independent government authority to apply the laws fairly. In light of these considerations, the Committee is of the view that the mentioned provisions of the draft EPZ Labour Act would need to be significantly amended or replaced in order to be brought into conformity with the Convention. Recalling that both the Conference Committee and the high-level tripartite mission requested the Government to ensure that any new legislation for the EPZs allows for full freedom of association, including the right to form free and independent trade unions and to associate with the organizations of their own choosing, and emphasizing the desirability of a harmonization of the labour law throughout the country which would ensure that the rights, inspection, judicial review and enforcement are equal for all workers and employers, the Committee requests the Government to address all the issues noted, encouraging it to consider replacing Chapters IX, X and XV of the draft Act by Chapter XIII of the BLA (as revised in line with the Committee’s comments), thereby providing equal rights of freedom of association to all workers and bringing the EPZs within the purview of the labour inspectorate (Chapter XX of the BLA). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken to bring the draft EPZ Labour Act into conformity with the Convention.

In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to indicate which labour laws were applicable to Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and ensured the rights under the Convention. Noting the Government’s indication that pending the enactment of a new law, the EWWAIRA is applicable to these zones, the Committee expresses concern at the fact that the EWWAIRA, which has been repeatedly addressed by the Committee due to its non-conformity with the Convention, is rendered applicable to other designated economic zones, rather than seeking to guarantee full freedom of association rights to all workers under a common legal regime. In view of its comments concerning the draft EPZ Labour Act and of concerns raised as to the limitation of freedom of association rights through the proliferation of special legal regimes, the Committee invites the Government to reconsider the adoption of a separate labour law for the SEZs and to opt instead for the application of the BLA, as revised in line with the Committee’s comments. The Committee trusts that, irrespective of the legislation applicable, all freedom of association rights under the Convention will be fully guaranteed to workers in SEZs.

In view of the above, the Committee once again recalls the critical importance which it gives to freedom of association as a fundamental human and enabling right and expresses its firm hope that significant progress will be made in the very near future to bring the legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2017.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 104th Session, June 2015)

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2015 concerning the application of the Convention. The Committee observes that the Conference Committee urged the Government to: undertake amendments to the Bangladesh Labour Act (BLA) 2006, as amended in 2013, in order to address the issues raised in relation to freedom of association and collective bargaining; ensure that the law governing the export processing zones (EPZs) allows for full freedom of association, including to form trade unions and to associate with trade unions outside of EPZs; investigate as a matter of urgency all acts of anti-union discrimination, ensure the reinstatement of those illegally dismissed, and impose fines or criminal sanctions; and ensure that applications for union registration are acted upon expeditiously and are not denied unless they fail to meet clear and objective criteria set out in the law. Further noting that the Conference Committee urged the Government to accept a high-level tripartite mission this year to ensure compliance with the recommendations, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that it did not consider it feasible to ensure effective coordination of both the direct contacts mission related to the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), and the mission related to this Convention. Noting that the Government did, however, express its willingness to receive a mission related to this Convention in 2016, the Committee expresses its firm hope that the high-level tripartite mission requested by the Conference Committee will take place without further delay.

The Committee takes note of the observations provided by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication received on 1 September 2015. The Committee takes note of the response of the Government to the 2014 ITUC observations and requests the Government to provide its comments on the latest communication. The Committee notes the observations provided by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF) in a communication received on 1 September 2015. The Committee also notes the observations of the IOE received on 1 September 2015, which are of a general nature.

Civil liberties. The Committee has, over the years, taken note of numerous allegations from the ITUC of violence against trade unionists. The Committee had requested the Government to provide detailed information on any pending investigations into serious allegations of violence and harassment. The Committee notes the Government’s general indication that there was no record of harassment for participation in trade union activities. The Government also refers to a helpline targeting the ready-made garment (RMG) sector in the Ashulia area which is expected to expand nationwide. The Committee notes this new development with interest and requests the Government to provide further information on the expansion of the helpline and statistics on its use, the precise nature of the follow-up to calls and the number of cases resolved.

The Committee had also requested the Government to report on the status of the investigations into the 2012 murder of a trade unionist. The Committee notes the information provided on the measures taken to investigate allegations of violence against a trade union general secretary and the subsequent filing of a court case against the management which is currently pending, while other cases were resolved through mutual dialogue. As regards the 2012 murder, the Government indicates that the Criminal Investigation Department has concluded that two persons are the principal suspects, and it has identified one of those. As this suspect had absconded, the Government has declared a reward of 100,000 Bangladeshi taka (US$1,400) for the apprehension of the identified individual. The case has been brought under the ambit of “sensitive cases”, which will ensure regular monitoring and thereby an expeditious trial. The charge sheet has been submitted and the case is under trial in absentia. The Committee trusts that all perpetrators and instigators responsible for violence against trade unionists will be identified, brought to trial and punished so as to prevent the repetition of such acts, and requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the ongoing trials and investigations referred to.

Legislative implementation. The Committee notes that the Bangladesh Labour Rules (BLR or Rules) were published in the Official Gazette on 15 September 2015 as part of the implementation of the BLA. The Committee welcomes the issuance of the Rules and trusts that they will assist in the implementation of the BLA in a manner which is fully consistent with the Convention and raises below a certain number of matters in this regard.

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The right to organize, elect officers and carry out activities freely. The Committee had previously requested the Government to provide detailed information and statistics on the registration of trade unions, and to respond to the ITUC observations that registered unions still only represented a small fraction of the 4 million workers in the RMG sector, and that there were a large number of registration applications that had yet to be acted upon, while dozens had been rejected under the Director of Labour’s discretionary authority. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are 7,550 trade unions and 171 trade union federations registered in the country. Between 1 January 2013 and 31 August 2015 a total of 333 trade unions were registered in the RMG sector bringing the total now to 465. There are 16 trade unions in the shrimp sector and eight in the ship-breaking sector. The Government adds that, in order to further ease the process, an online registration system has been introduced on the website of the Department of Labour. The Government further indicates that 31 applications for registration were refused in 2013, 145 in 2014 and 121 in 2015 (up to August) as they were missing the correct documents and information and were not in conformity with the provisions of the labour law. According to the Government, 30 applications for registration in the RMG sector were rejected, while the ITUC refers to 39. Recalling that the registration process should be a simple formality, which should not restrict the right of workers to establish organizations without previous authorization, the Committee trusts that the online registration system will facilitate resolution of registration applications expeditiously, and requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the registration of trade unions and the specific legislative obstacles invoked for cases of denial.

The Committee notes that Rule 167(4) appears to introduce a new minimum membership requirement of 400 workers to establish an agricultural trade union. The Committee expresses its concern at the apparent introduction in the Rules of an element that is not set out in the BLA itself, and which would restrict the right of agricultural workers to form and join the organization of their own choosing. The Committee recalls in this regard its 2015 General Survey, Giving a voice to rural workers, paragraphs 115–120 and 292, in which it refers to the importance of ensuring that minimum membership requirements for rural workers’ organizations do not constitute an obstacle to the right to organize of these workers, especially bearing in mind the particular challenges they face for organizing. The Committee requests the Government to clarify the implications of this Rule and, if it does indeed restrict the right to organize of agricultural workers, to modify the Rule so as to align it with the BLA and in any event to lower the requirement to ensure conformity with the Convention.

As regards the existing 30 per cent minimum membership requirement, while noting the views of the Government and the IOE and BEF that the establishment of threshold limits for the formation of unions must be viewed within the national context and must bear in mind the importance of avoiding a proliferation of trade unions that could be counterproductive to the development of healthy industrial relations and economic growth, the Committee must recall its deep concern that workers are still obliged to meet this excessive requirement for initial and continued union registration, and that unions whose membership falls below this number will be deregistered (sections 179(2) and 190(f) of the BLA), while no more than three trade unions shall be registered in any establishment or group of establishments (section 179(5)). The Committee emphasizes once again that such a high threshold for merely being able to form a union and maintain registration violates the right of all workers, without distinction whatsoever, to form and join organizations of their own choosing provided under Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to review these provisions with the social partners with a view to its amendment and to provide information on the progress made in this regard.

As regards the legislative reform more generally, the Committee notes the reference made by the IOE and the BEF to their interventions in the Conference Committee and in particular their indication that it would be useful for the ILO to provide assistance to the country in the process of reviewing its legislation so that the overall outcomes, as provided for in the Convention, could be achieved and a distinction made between lawful industrial activities and public disorder. Regretting that the Government has not provided any additional information on steps taken to further amend the BLA since its 2013 amendment, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the steps taken to review and amend the following provisions to ensure that restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of association and related industrial activities are in conformity with the Convention: scope of the law (sections 1(4), 2(49) and (65), and 175); restrictions on organizing in civil aviation and for seafarers (sections 184(1), (2) and (4), and 185(3)); restrictions on organizing in groups of establishments (section 183(1)); restrictions on trade union membership (sections 2(65), 175, 185(2), 193 and 300); interference in trade union activity (sections 196(2)(a) and (b), 190(e) and (g), 192, 229(c), 291 and 299); interference in trade union elections (sections 196(2)(d) and 317(d)); interference in the right to draw up their constitutions freely (section 179(1)); excessive restrictions on the right to strike (sections 211(1), (3), (4) and (8), and 227(c)), accompanied by severe penalties (sections 196(2)(e), 291, and 294–296); excessive preferential rights for collective bargaining agents (sections 202(24)(c) and (e), and 204); and cancellation of trade union registration (section 202(22)) and excessive penalties (section 301).

The Committee further notes that newly issued Rule 169(4) (eligibility for membership to the union executive committee) refers to the notion of permanent workers, and requests the Government to clarify the impact that this would have on the right of workers’ organizations to elect their officers freely.

The Committee further notes that Rule 202 restricts in a very general manner the actions that can be taken by trade unions and participation committees, providing that they shall refrain in particular from: interference in the administrative functions of the establishment; interference in the appointment, transfer and promotion of officials, employees or workers in the establishment; receiving any facilities from the management concerning transport, furniture or financial matters; and interference in production and normal activities of the establishment. The Committee notes with concern that Rule 188 further provides a role for the employer in forming the election committees to conduct the election of worker representatives to participation committees in the absence of a union, and provides a ratio for the representation therein of two employer representatives to three worker representatives, while at the same time, the ITUC has made reference in its communication to growing concerns that employers are encouraging the formation of company unions in order to prevent being organized by worker-led trade unions. The Committee notes that while section 195 of the BLA sets out what constitutes unfair labour practices on the part of the employers, there appears to be no additional development on this point in the Rules (apart from a general reference in Rule 366) that would clearly limit the restrictions set out in Rule 202 or provide appropriate procedures and remedies for unfair labour practice complaints, including as regards the election process to participation committees. Observing that this was an element of the Government’s commitment undertaken within the framework of the implementation of the European Union, United States, Bangladesh Sustainability Compact, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the steps taken to ensure that workers’ organizations are not restricted in the exercise of their internal affairs and that unfair labour practices are effectively prevented.

Article 5. The right to form federations. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to review section 200(1) of the BLA so as to ensure that the requirement of the minimum number of trade unions to form a federation (now at five) is not excessively high and thus does not infringe the right of workers’ organizations to form federations. It further requested the Government to take measures to amend the section so that workers may form federations of a broader occupational or interoccupational coverage and that there is no requirement for the trade union members to belong to more than one administrative division. The Committee takes due note of the Government’s indication that this amendment made in 2013 was the result of tripartite consensus. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any further developments in this regard, including on the number of federations formed since the amendment and as to whether any complaints have been made in relation to the impact that this provision has had on the right of workers’ organizations to form the federation of their own choosing.

Right to organize in export processing zones (EPZs). In its previous observation, the Committee had recalled that there were a number of provisions of the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2010 (EWWAIRA) (sections 6–10, 12, 16, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28, 34, 38, 46 and 80), which needed to be amended in order to bring the Act into conformity with the Convention. The Government referred to a draft of the Bangladesh EPZ Labour Act, which was approved in principle by the Cabinet in July 2014, while the ITUC had indicated that this draft was elaborated without consultation with Worker representatives and did nothing to address the concerns that had been raised under the Convention. The Committee had thus called on the Government to carry out full consultations with the workers’ and employers’ organizations in the country with a view to enacting new legislation for the EPZs which is fully in conformity with the provisions of the Convention. The Government indicates in the latest information provided simply that the draft EPZ Labour Act has been sent to the Ministry of Law for vetting prior to submission to the Parliament. Recalling the Conference Committee’s recommendation to the Government to ensure that the law governing the EPZs allows for full freedom of association, including to form trade unions and to associate with trade unions outside of EPZs, the Committee once again urges the Government to resubmit this matter for full consultations with the workers’ and employers’ organizations in the country with a view to enacting new legislation for the EPZs in the near future, which is fully in conformity with the Convention.

The Committee further notes that the ITUC refers in its observations to a Korean Export Processing Zone (KEPZ), which it states is the only private EPZ established under the Bangladesh Private EPZ Act (1996), and adds that it is unclear which law is applied to this zone as regards wages and labour rights. The ITUC alleges that on the one hand, the wages of government EPZs appear not to apply in the KEPZ, while on the other hand the employer bans the establishment of trade unions implying that the BLA does not apply either. The Committee requests the Government to respond to these observations and to indicate the labour laws that are applicable to private EPZs (or Special Economic Zones), and which ensure that the rights under the Convention are guaranteed to workers in these zones.

In view of the absence of any meaningful progress on most of the matters it has been raising for many years, the Committee cannot but recall the critical importance which it gives to freedom of association as a fundamental human and enabling right and express its firm hope that significant progress will be made in the very near future to bring the legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received.

The Committee takes note of the observations provided by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication received on 1 September 2014. The Committee takes note of the response of the Government to the 2013 ITUC observations and requests it to provide its comments on this most recent communication. The Committee takes note of the observations provided by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) in a communication received on 1 September 2014.

In its previous comment, the Committee, noting the observations submitted by the ITUC alleging the murder of a trade unionist, a union leader and two striking workers, had requested the Government to provide detailed information on any pending investigations into the serious allegations of violence and harassment. The Committee notes the numerous additional allegations of violence against trade unionists set out in the ITUC’s most recent communication. The Committee deplores that the Government has not provided any information in relation to investigations planned or carried out in respect of these allegations and in particular has provided no information on the status of the investigations in respect of the trade unionist murdered in 2012. The Committee urges the Government to provide its comments on the recent allegations of violence and harassment and to report on the status of the investigations into the 2012 murder of a trade unionist.

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The right to organize, elect officers and carry out activities freely. The Committee previously requested the Government, in light of the concerns raised by the ITUC that the progress made in registration in the ready-made garment sector (RMG) may not be seen in other sectors throughout the country, to continue to provide detailed information and statistics on the registration of trade unions by sector. The Committee notes the recent observations of the ITUC that, while there has been real progress in trade union registration, registered unions still only represent a small fraction of the 4 million workers in the RMG sector and there are a large number of registration applications that have yet to be acted upon while dozens have been rejected under the Director of Labour’s discretionary authority. The Committee once again requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information and statistics on the registration of trade unions and further requests it to respond to the issues raised in the ITUC’s observations.

Legislative reform. In previous comments the Committee took due note of the amendments made in July 2013 to the Bangladesh Labour Act (BLA) and the Government’s indication that the necessary steps may be taken to further amend the BLA in future on a tripartite basis considering the socio-economic condition of the country and that ILO assistance may be required in this regard. Regretting that no further amendments have been made to the BLA on certain fundamental matters, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the steps taken to review and amend the following provisions: scope of the law (sections 1(4), 2(49) and (65), and 175); restrictions on organizing in civil aviation and for seafarers (sections 184(1), (2) and (4), and 185(3)); restrictions on organizing in groups of establishments (section 183(1)); restrictions on trade union membership (sections 2(65), 175, 185(2), 193 and 300); interference in trade union activity (sections 196(2)(a) and (b), 190(e) and (g), 192, 229(c), 291 and 299); interference in trade union elections (sections 196(2)(d) and 317(d)); interference in the right to draw up their constitutions freely (section 179(1)); excessive restrictions on the right to strike (sections 211(1), (3), (4) and (8), and 227(c)), accompanied by severe penalties (sections 196(2)(e), 291, and 294–296); excessive preferential rights for collective bargaining agents (sections 202(24)(c) and (e), and 204); and cancellation of trade union registration (section 202(22)) and excessive penalties (section 301).

The Committee further deeply regrets that workers are still obliged to meet the minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in an establishment or group of establishments for initial and continued union registration, and that unions whose membership falls below this number will be deregistered (sections 179(2) and 190(f)), while no more than three trade unions shall be registered in any establishment or group of establishments (section 179(5)). The Committee wishes once again to emphasize that such a high threshold for merely being able to form and have a union registered violates the right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing provided under Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the abovementioned provisions and to provide information on developments in this regard.

Observing the Government’s previous indication that a process is under way for the drafting of supplementary implementing rules for the amended BLA, the Committee trusts that Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules (IRR) 1977 upon which it previously commented is no longer being applied and expects that new Rules will be issued without further delay and will ensure that the authority granted to the Registrar does not interfere with trade union internal affairs. It requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in finalizing these Rules and to furnish a copy once they have been approved.

Article 5. The right to form federations. The Committee once again requests the Government to review section 200(1) of the BLA so as to ensure that the requirement of the minimum number of trade unions to form a federation (now at five) is not excessively high and thus does not infringe the right of workers’ organizations to form federations and to amend this section so that workers may form federations of a broader occupational or interoccupational coverage and that there is no requirement for the trade union members to belong to more than one administrative division.

Right to organize in export processing zones (EPZs). Referring to its previous observation, the Committee recalls that it has commented in detail on the provisions of the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2010 (EWWAIRA) which needed to be amended in order to bring the Act into conformity with the Convention. This included the need to amend sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16 and 24, which excessively regulated the formation of Workers’ Welfare Associations (WWAs) or their higher-level organization in a manner contrary to the Convention, and sections 10, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28, 34, 38, 46 and 80, which permitted the Government’s interference in the internal activities of the WWAs. In its previous comments, the Committee noted information provided by the Government that an inter-ministerial committee had been formed to examine and prepare a separate and complete labour law as an international standard for EPZ workers. The Committee notes, however, the recent observations from the ITUC that the Cabinet tabled a draft of the Bangladesh EPZ Labour Act in July 2014, which was elaborated without consultation with workers’ representatives and which does nothing to address the concerns that had been raised under the Convention. The Committee urges the Government to carry out full consultations with the workers’ and employers’ organizations in the country with a view to elaborating new legislation for the EPZs which is fully in conformity with the provisions of the Convention. It requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on all progress made in this regard and to transmit a copy of the legislation once it has been adopted.

Recalling the critical importance which it gives to freedom of association as a fundamental human and enabling right, the Committee trusts that significant progress will be made in the very near future to bring the legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention on all of the abovementioned points.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2015.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 102nd Session, June 2013)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report that, considering the changing global scenario in the labour sector, it had initiated amendments to the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 (hereinafter, the BLA), to make it more in line with ILO Conventions. These amendments were passed by Parliament on 15 July 2013 and notified in the Bangladesh Gazette on 22 July. The Government states that the amendment process underwent thorough consultations. Seventy-six articles were amended and seven new articles introduced placing special emphasis on workers’ welfare, rights and safety, industrial safety and expansion of the industry; transparency in trade union registration and wage payment system; and promoting trade unionism and collective bargaining. In addition, a committee headed by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment has been formed to formulate supplementary rules for the amended Act, and a working group has begun to prepare a draft.

The Committee notes the detailed comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on the application of the Convention in communications dated 21 August and 13 September 2013. It further notes the comments made by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF) in a communication dated 30 August 2013. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments of the ITUC, the IOE and the BEF with its next report.

In its previous observation, the Committee, noting the comments submitted by the ITUC in 2012 alleging the murder of a trade unionist, a union leader and two striking workers, and also violence and harassment of trade unionists in the pharmaceutical sector and Export Processing Zones (EPZs), had requested the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to carry out investigations into these serious allegations with a view to determining responsibilities and punishing those responsible, and to provide information in this respect. The Committee takes due note of the information provided by the Government that the law enforcement agencies must carry out their duties as per the law of the land and that there was no illegal threat or police harassment or arrest or detention of trade unionists and trade union leaders. If there were any victims, they were accused of misdeeds and criminal activities, including agitation, violence and crisis in the ready-made garment sector. The Committee further notes, with respect to the incident in the pharmaceutical sector that the case filed by the company against 33 workers was dismissed on 10 October 2012. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on the outcome of the investigations carried out in respect of any pending allegations of violence and harassment and, recalling that a genuinely free and independent trade union movement cannot develop in a climate of violence and uncertainty, to provide full particulars of the status of the investigations in respect of the murdered trade unionist.

With respect to its request concerning the status of the court case relating to the Bangladesh Garments and Industrial Sramik Federation (BGIWF), the Committee notes the Government’s indication to the 2013 Conference Committee on the Application of Standards that the BGIWF was functioning without any obstacle pending the decision of the Labour Court in the case it filed in 2008 for the cancellation of its registration. The Committee further notes the indication in the Government’s latest report that the next hearing date for this case has been set on 5 January 2014 and no permission has yet been given by the court to cancel the federation’s registration. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on developments in this regard in its next report.

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The right to organize, elect officers and carry out activities freely. The Committee previously noted the allegations made by the ITUC of the refusal by the Government to register unions in several sectors, including the telecom and garment sectors. The Committee notes from the latest communication of the ITUC that, while there has been a recent surge in the registration of trade unions, and that the 45 new unions in the ready-made garment (RMG) sector can be seen as positive, the ITUC was concerned that this progress would not be seen in other sectors. The Committee further notes the statistics provided in the Government’s report according to which, as of November 2013, 7,222 trade unions have been registered in the country, 32 national federations, 162 industrial federations and 34 garment industry federations, covering a total of 204 trade unions. The Government adds that 68 trade unions were registered in the RMG sector between January and November 2013. In light of the concerns raised by the ITUC, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed information and statistics on the registration of trade unions, disaggregated by sector.

Legislative reform. In previous comments, the Committee, observing that a labour law reform process was under way, had requested the Government to amend a number of provisions in the BLA so as to bring it into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee takes due note of the amendments made in July 2013 and the Government’s indication that the amendment of any law is a continuous process. The Government adds that necessary steps may be taken to amend the BLA in future on a tripartite basis considering the socio-economic condition of the country and that ILO assistance may be required in this regard.

The Committee notes with interest the amendment to section 180 which places a limitation on the restriction for the election of trade union officers to those who are employed in establishments in the state-owned industrial sector, enabling 10 per cent of union officers to be elected from persons outside of the establishment. The Committee requests the Government to further amend the legislation so that the same possibility of electing officers from outside of the establishment applies more generally to the private sector as well.

Furthermore, while welcoming a slight amendment made to section 1(4) to extend the scope of the BLA to the educational, training and research institutions functioning for profit, the Committee notes with regret that this is not the case for not-for-profit educational, training and research institutions, hospitals, clinics and diagnostic centres, as well as farms employing under five workers. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the freedom of association rights set out in the Convention are guaranteed to these excluded workers.

The Committee takes note of the comments of the BEF in respect of section 2(49) of the BLA and its view that it is essential for administrative systems that managers and administrative officers fall within the category of employers, not workers, for organizing purposes let there be a collapse in the chain of command affecting productivity. The Committee recalls in this regard that it has always considered that managerial or supervisory employees may be denied the right to belong to trade unions of workers provided that they have the right to establish their own associations to defend their interests and that these categories of staff are not defined so broadly as to weaken the organizations of other workers in the enterprise by depriving them of a substantial proportion of their present or potential membership.

The Committee deeply regrets that the Government did not take this opportunity to address most of its previous requests for amendments: scope of the law (sections 2(49) and (65) and 175); restrictions on organizing in civil aviation and for seafarers (sections 184(1), (2) and (4) and 185(3)); restrictions on organizing in groups of establishments (section 183(1)); restrictions on trade union membership (sections 2(65), 175, 185(2), 193 and 300)); interference in trade union activity (sections 196(2)(a) and (b), 190(e) and (g), 192, 229(c), 291 and 299); interference in trade union elections (sections 196(2)(d) and 317(d)); interference in the right to draw up their constitutions freely (section 179(1)); excessive restrictions on the right to strike (sections 211(1), (3), (4) and (8) and 227(c)), accompanied by severe penalties (sections 196(2)(e), 291 and 294–296); excessive preferential rights for collective bargaining agents (sections 202(24)(c) and (e) and 204); cancellation of trade union registration (section 202(22)) and excessive penalties (section 301).

The Committee further deeply regrets that workers are still obliged to meet the minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in an establishment or group of establishments for initial and continued union registration, and that unions whose membership falls below this number will be deregistered (sections 179(2) and 190(f)), while no more than three trade unions shall be registered in any establishment or group of establishments (section 179(5)). Despite the various statements over the years that this requirement has been accepted by all concerned, the Committee wishes to emphasise that such a high threshold for merely being able to form and have a union registered necessarily interferes with the right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing provided under Article 2 of the Convention.

Article 5. The right to form federations. The Committee also regrets that the Government did not take this opportunity to modify the draft amendment (section 200(1)), which the Committee commented on last year, requiring that federations gather five or more trade unions, registered in more than one administrative division and formed in establishments engaged, or carrying on, in a similar or identical industry. The Committee requests the Government once again to review this provision so as to ensure that the requirement of the minimum number of trade unions to form a federation (raised from two to five) is not excessively high and thus does not infringe the right of workers’ organizations to form federations and to amend this section so that workers may form federations of a broader occupational or inter-occupational coverage and that there is no requirement for the trade union members to belong to more than one administrative division.

Encouraged by the Government’s indication that further amendment of the BLA with ILO technical assistance could be considered, the Committee firmly requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures to review and amend the abovementioned provisions so as to bring them into conformity with the Convention. Observing also the Government’s indication that a process is under way for the drafting of supplementary implementing rules for the amended BLA, the Committee recalls that it has requested the Government to repeal or amend rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules (IRR) 1977, so that the authority granted to the Registrar did not interfere with trade union internal affairs and requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard and to furnish a copy of the new Rules.

Right to organize in EPZs. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) in the Government’s report on the manner in which the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2010 (EWWAIRA) is applied. The BEPZA refers to 283 referendums (74.28 per cent of eligible industries) for Workers’ Welfare Associations (WWA) carried out on the basis of principles of transparency and accountability. It is further indicated in the Government’s report that the BEPZA will be in a position to consider the comments made by the Committee and the need for any changes to the law in light of the experience gathered through its enforcement.

Referring to its previous observation, the Committee recalls that it has commented in detail on the areas of the EWWAIRA which needed to be addressed to bring the Act into conformity with the Convention. This included the need to amend sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 24, which excessively regulated the formation of WWAs or their higher-level organization in a manner contrary to the Convention, and sections 10, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28, 34, 38, 46, 80 and 81 (to lapse on 31 December 2013), which permitted the Government’s interference in the internal activities of the WWAs. The Committee notes from the discussion of the 2013 Conference Committee on the Application of Standards that the Government had expressed its intention to work with the ILO to consider the manner in which EPZ workers could be brought into the scope of the national labour law to ensure freedom of association, the right to bargaining and other issues concerning labour standards.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a high-level committee has been formed to examine and prepare a separate and complete labour law as an international standard for EPZ workers. This committee has formed a sub-committee headed by the Director-General of the Prime Minister’s Office and two meetings have already been held to prepare a draft EPZ labour law. The Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the very near future to guarantee the rights under the Convention to workers in export processing zones and requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on the progress made in this regard.

Finally, the Government refers to a number of ILO technical cooperation projects in the country with the aim of improving the trade union registration system, providing capacity building for employers and trade unions, promoting workers’ rights and labour relations in the export-oriented sector and raising the awareness of workers at factory level of fundamental principles and rights at work.

Recalling the critical importance which it gives to freedom of association as a fundamental human and enabling right, the Committee trusts that significant progress will be made in the very near future to bring the legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention on all of the abovementioned points.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2014.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Workers’ and employers’ organizations’ comments. The Committee notes the comments made by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) on the right to strike, in a communication dated 29 August 2012, which are dealt with in the General Report of the Committee.

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 4 and 31 August 2011 concerning allegations of arrests, harassment and detention of trade unionists and trade union leaders, notably in the garment sector. In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (1) the police and the law-enforcing agencies did their duties pursuant to the law and, according to them, there have not been illegal threats, police harassment or arrest and detention of trade unionists, and no death or illegal arrest has happened intentionally; the victims, if any, were accused for their misdeeds and criminal activities; (2) the law enforcement agencies had to interrogate some violence-creating persons to protect public property and to clear the blockade organized in the garment sector, but they did not harass anyone, nor did they have the aim of harassing trade union leaders or disrupting trade union activities; (3) law enforcement agencies are performing their duties under directives and close supervision of the Ministry of Home Affairs; (4) as to the alleged killings in an export processing zone (EPZ), agitated workers attacked members of the police, some of whom were seriously injured as a result (the police used water cannon, tear-gas shells and rubber bullets and a worker died of a heart attack while passing nearby); and (5) workers and employers in the garment sector are not fully aware of the benefits of implementing the principles of the Convention and training should be provided to them in this regard. As to the alleged refusal by the Registrar of Trade Unions to register new unions, the Government indicates that, although trade union activities were totally stopped during the Emergency period (from January 2007 to December 2008), the Labour Act 2006 establishes some legal and reasonable requirements for union registration and, if these are fulfilled, there is no reason to refuse registration of new trade unions. This registration procedure is logical and justified to maintain the discipline in the industrial relations field.

With respect to its request to indicate the status of the court case concerning the Bangladesh Garments and Industrial Sramik Federation (BGIWF) registration, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Department of Labour submitted the case for the cancellation of the registration of the BGIWF for violation of its constitution and unfair labour practice to the labour court in 2008 (No. 51 of 2008), that the case is still pending and that the next hearing will be on 18 September 2012. In this respect, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the ongoing procedure will conclude in the near future and requests the Government to indicate in its next report the status of the registration of the BGIWF.

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the ITUC on 31 July and 31 August 2012 concerning allegations of murder of a trade unionist, a union leader and two striking workers, violence and harassment of trade unionists in the pharmaceutical and EPZs, as well as the refusal to register unions in several sectors, including the telecom and garment sectors. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to carry out investigations concerning these serious allegations with a view to determining responsibilities and punishing those responsible, and to provide information in this respect.

Right to organize in EPZs. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information and statistics on the number of workers’ welfare associations (WWAs) established in EPZs and on steps taken to amend legislation so that EPZ workers may fully exercise the rights guaranteed by the Convention. In this respect, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that referendums on WWAs were carried out in 246 out of 309 enterprises, and that 154 enterprises had formed WWAs up to 8 January 2012. The Government also states that these WWAs are actively performing their activities as collective bargaining agents. The Government indicates that the Bangladesh Export Processing Zone Authority (BEPZA) has been taking all the required steps to ensure the full implementation of the new EPZ Workers’ Welfare Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2010 (EWWAIRA) by issuing letters and distributing the Act to enterprises of EPZs for establishing WWAs. The Committee notes the allegation of the ITUC that at their peak, there were roughly 90 WWAs in EPZs, and that it is not clear whether the results of the referendums are reliable and reflect a fully informed vote on the part of the workers. The ITUC alleges that WWAs have been unable to function because employers failed to follow the law (e.g. refusing to provide meeting space, refusing to allow workers to hold meetings, refusing to review grievances, refusing to bargain) and BEPZA has failed to enforce it. The ITUC alleges that, as the initial trade union leaders have left or have been fired, new leaders have not taken their places. The ITUC further alleges that the formation of many WWAs in EPZs has been at the initiative of BEPZA which, through management of the affected enterprises, circulated a document to the workers to “demand” formation of WWAs; the entire procedure was allegedly effectively dictated by BEPZA in consultation with the respective employers. The ITUC claims that such a process is not consistent with workers’ right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the ITUC’s comments.

The Committee further recalls that it had previously commented on the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2004, which contained numerous and significant restrictions and delays in relation to the right to organize in EPZs, and that it had noted with deep regret the adoption of the EWWAIRA which does not contain any real improvement in relation to the previous legislation and which does not address any of its previous comments.

In these circumstances, the Committee once again requests the Government to take all the necessary measures to bring the following provisions of the EWWAIRA into conformity with the Convention:

• -section 16, which provides that a WWA will not be allowed in industrial units established after the commencement of the Act until a period of three months has expired after the start of commercial production in the concerned unit. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this period is required for the initial understanding and preparation of both management and workers in order to ensure their rights and responsibilities;
• -section 17(1), which provides that there can be no more than one WWA per industrial unit. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this requirement ensures more discipline and more harmonious industrial management within a company;
• -sections 6, 7, 9 and 12, which establish excessive and complicated minimum membership and referendum requirements for the establishment of a WWA (a WWA may be formed only when a minimum of 30 per cent of the eligible workers of an industrial unit seek its formation, and this has been verified by the Executive Chairperson of BEPZA, who shall then conduct a referendum on the basis of which the workers shall acquire the legitimate right to form an association under the Act, only if more than 50 per cent of the eligible workers cast their vote, and more than 50 per cent of the votes cast are in favour of the formation of the WWA). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that sections 6, 7, 9 and 12 were introduced to ensure willingness and spontaneous participation of the workers in organizing referendums and to ensure more transparency and accountability;
• -section 9(2), which confers excessive powers to the Executive Chairperson of BEPZA concerning the approval of the Constitution Drafting Committee of the WWA. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Executive Chairperson has always approved the Constitution Drafting Committee within five days, as required by section 9(2) which demonstrates that no excessive power is conferred to the Executive Chairperson;
• -section 8, which prevents a referendum from being held for the establishment of a WWA in the workplace for a period of one year, after a first attempt failed to gather sufficient support. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this delay is required to ensure proper understanding among the workers and organize them more effectively;
• -section 27, which permits the deregistration of a WWA at the request of 30 per cent of the workers, even if they are not members of the association, and prevents the establishment of another WWA for one year after the previous one was deregistered. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that section 27 was enacted to prevent mala fide intentions, misleading and misuse of power by WWA members, which may affect workers’ welfare. To the knowledge of the Government, there has been no case of deregistration of a WWA;
• -sections 28(1)(c), (e)–(h) and 34(1)(a), which provide for the cancellation of the registration of a WWA on grounds which do not appear to justify the severity of this sanction (such as violation of any of the provisions of the association’s constitution). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the aim of section 28 is to safeguard the interest of the workers in general, to ensure a congenial atmosphere among the workers as well as smooth production in an enterprise. As to section 34, it ensures transparency and accountability of WWAs;
• -section 46(3) and (4), which provides for severe restrictions of strike action, once authorized, and section 81(1) and (2) which establishes a total prohibition of industrial action in EPZs until 31 October 2013. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that section 46(3) and (4) has secured a smooth production atmosphere for greater interest of the company as well as workers;
• -section 10(2), which prevents a WWA from obtaining or receiving any funds from any outside source without the prior approval of the Executive Chairperson of BEPZA;
• -section 24(1), which establishes an excessively high minimum number of associations to establish a higher-level organization (more than 50 per cent of the WWAs in an EPZ), and section 24(3), which prohibits a federation from affiliating in any manner with federations in other EPZs and beyond EPZs;
• -sections 20(1), 21 and 24(4), which do not seem to afford guarantees against interference with the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom (e.g. the procedure of election is to be determined by BEPZA); and
• -section 80, which provides that WWAs are now prohibited from establishing any connection to any political parties or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that since BEPZA encourages the welfare of all workers and addresses their grievances through industrial relations officials, counsellors, conciliators, arbitrators, EPZ labour tribunals and EPZ labour appellate tribunals, connections with NGOs and political parties may delay the process of settlement of grievances. Furthermore, the Government emphasizes that workers may approach directly the Executive Chairman of the BEPZA, the labour tribunal and the labour appellate tribunal for settlement of their complaints, if any. The Committee recalls once again that provisions imposing a general prohibition on political activities by trade unions for the promotion of their specific objectives, and provisions which restrict the freedom of trade unions to administer and utilize their funds as they wish for normal and lawful trade union purposes are contrary to the principles of freedom of association.

Moreover, the Committee noted section 38(4) concerning check-off facilities which stipulates that “the executive council at the beginning of the calendar year shall, with the accounts statement of the previous year, submit for approval the current year’s revenue budget containing income expenditure to the Executive Chairman or to an officer authorized by him”. The Committee notes, once again, the Government’s indication that this section will ensure the transparency and accountability of WWAs. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the scope of application of this new subsection 4 of section 38 and its impact on check-off facilities.

The Committee further noted that a federation of WWAs cannot be legally formed until BEPZA has issued regulations. According to the ITUC, these regulations have yet to be issued. The Government indicates that, in order to streamline the formation of federations, BEPZA is preparing the necessary rules and regulations according to the Act. BEPZA has always supported the formation of WWA federations; but has yet to receive any formal request from a WWA to form a federation fulfilling requirements of the Act. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to issue the regulations concerning the right of WWAs to establish and join federations, in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention.

Other discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. In previous comments, the Committee noted the adoption of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 (the Labour Act), which replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969, and noted with deep regret that the Labour Act did not contain any improvements and, in certain regards, contained even further restrictions which were contrary to the provisions of the Convention. The Committee took note of the Government’s statement that a tripartite labour law review committee to identify the gaps and discrepancies in the Labour Act and suggest the necessary amendments had been constituted. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the revision of the Labour Act with comments of all levels of stakeholders is under process by a 22-member high-power Tripartite Labour Law Review Committee (TLRQ) headed by the State Minister of Labour and Employment. The draft amendments have been submitted to the Tripartite Consultative Council (TCC) on 9 February 2012. The Committee notes that some of the proposed amendments would provide improvements to the current Labour Act (for example, by including “research institutions” into the scope of application of the Labour Act (section 1(4)); by repealing the provision requiring the Director of Labour to send the list of officers of a trade union to the employer (section 178(3)); and by offering the possibility of electing up to 20 per cent of the members of an executive committee from persons not employed in the establishment where the trade union is formed (section 180(b))). However, the proposed amendments do not take into account most of the observations previously raised by the Committee. The Government indicates that the draft amendments are being reviewed further and will be submitted again to the TCC for finalization. In these circumstances, the Committee expresses the firm hope that the review process of the Labour Act referred to above will be finalized in the near future and will take into account the following discrepancies between the Labour Act and the Convention:

• -the need to repeal provisions excluding managerial and administrative employees from the right to establish workers’ organizations (section 2(49) and (65) of the Labour Act) as well as new restrictions of the right to organize of firefighting staff, telex operators, fax operators and cipher assistants (exclusion from the provisions of the Act based on section 175). The Committee notes that the Government indicates that telex and fax operators are allowed to exercise their trade union rights. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the legal provisions that grant trade union rights to the abovementioned workers;
• -the need to either amend section 1(4) or adopt new legislation so as to ensure that the workers excluded in relation to trade union rights from Chapters XIII and XIV of the Labour Act enjoy the right to organize. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that sectors which have been excluded from the operation of the Act have been excluded in the interests of security, public administration and smooth environment and that the country is not in a position to amend section 1(4) considering the socio-economic, cultural and environment situation and practices;
• -the need to repeal provisions which restrict membership in trade unions and participation in trade union elections of those workers who are currently employed in an establishment or group of establishments, including seafarers engaged in merchant shipping (sections 2(65), 175 and 185(2));
• -the need to repeal or amend new provisions which define as an unfair labour practice on the part of a worker or trade union an act aimed at “intimidating” any person to become, continue to be or cease to be a trade union member or officer, or “inducing” any person to cease to be a member or officer of a trade union by conferring or offering to confer any advantage, and the consequent penalty of imprisonment for such acts (sections 196(2)(a) and (b) and 291). The Committee notes that the Government considers section 196(2)(a) and (b) to be justified in the national context where there is competition in enrolling members of trade unions that results in bloodshed, clashes and litigation. In order to prevent such untoward situations and to restore peace and a good environment, the Government considers these provisions to be sine qua non;
• -the need to repeal provisions which prevent workers from running for trade union office if they were previously convicted for compelling or attempting to compel the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement or to agree to any demand by using intimidation, pressure, threats, etc. (sections 196(2)(d) and 180(1)(a));
• -the need to lower the minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in an establishment or group of establishments for initial and continued union registration, as well as the possibility of deregistration if the membership falls below this number (sections 179(2) and 190(f)); the need to repeal provisions which provide that no more than three trade unions shall be registered in any establishment or group of establishments (section 179(5)) and that only one trade union of seafarers shall be registered (section 185(3)); and the need to repeal provisions prohibiting workers from joining more than one trade union and the consequent penalty of imprisonment in case of violation of this prohibition (sections 193 and 300);
• -the need to modify section 179(1) which lists excessive requirements that must appear in the content of the constitution of a trade union in order for it to be entitled for registration;
• -the need to amend section 190(e) and (g) which provides that the registration of a trade union may be cancelled by the Director of Labour if the trade union committed any unfair labour practice or contravened any of the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Rules. The Committee considers that, while the decision of the Director of Labour can be appealed before the tribunal (section 191) which will have to apply the legislation in force, the criteria for dissolution are too broad and involve serious risks of interference by the authorities in the existence of trade unions;
• -the need to amend section 202(22) which provides that if any contesting trade union receives less than 10 per cent of the votes for the election of the collective bargaining agent, the registration of that union should be cancelled. The Committee considers that, while the 10 per cent requirement may not be deemed excessive for the certification of a collective bargaining agent, trade unions which do not gather 10 per cent of workers should not be deregistered and should be able to continue to represent their members (for instance, making representations on their behalf, including representing them in case of individual grievances);
• -the need to amend section 317(d), which empowers the Director of Labour to supervise the election of trade union executives, so as to allow organizations to freely elect their representatives;
• -the need to repeal provisions denying the right of unregistered unions to collect funds (section 192) upon penalty of imprisonment (section 299);
• -the need to modify section 184(1), which provides that workers engaged in any specialized and skilled trade, occupation or service in the field of civil aviation may form a trade union if such union is necessary for affiliation with an international organization in the same field, and section 184(4) which provides that the registration should be cancelled within six months if the trade union is not affiliated to the international organization concerned;
• -the need to amend sections 202(24)(c) and (e) and 204 which provide the collective bargaining agent in an establishment with some preferential rights (such as the right to declare a strike, to conduct cases on behalf of any individual worker or group of workers, and the right to check-off facilities), so that the distinction between a collective bargaining agent and other trade unions is limited to the recognition of certain preferential rights (for example, for such purposes as collective bargaining, consultation by the authorities or the designation of delegates to international organizations), in order for the distinction not to have the effect of depriving those trade unions that are not recognized as being amongst the most representative of the essential means for defending the occupational interests of their members for organizing their administration and activities, and formulating their programmes;
• -the need to lift several restrictions on the right to strike (concerning the majority required to consent to a strike (sections 211(1) and 227 (c)); the prohibition of strikes which last more than 30 days (sections 211(3) and 227(c)); the possibility of prohibiting strikes at any time if a strike is considered prejudicial to the national interest (sections 211(3) and 227(c)) or if it involves certain services (sections 211(4) and 227(c)); the prohibition of strikes for a period of three years in certain establishments (sections 211(8) and 227(c)); the penalties (sections 196(2)(e), 291 and 294–296); and interference in trade union matters (section 229));
• -the need to amend section 301, which imposes a penalty of imprisonment for failure to appear before the conciliator in the framework of settlement of industrial disputes;
• -the need to amend section 183(1), which provides that in a group of establishments no more than one trade union can be formed, so as to allow workers in any establishment or group of establishments to form organizations of their own choosing; and the need to amend section 184(2) which provides that only one trade union can be formed in each trade, occupation or service in a civil aviation establishment and if at least half of the total number of workers concerned apply in writing for registration. The Committee considers that the existence of an organization in a specific enterprise, trade, establishment, economic category or occupation should not constitute an obstacle for the establishment of another organization; and
• -concerning the draft amendment, the need to modify section 200(1) of the draft amendments which provides that any five or more trade unions, registered in more than one administrative division and formed in establishments engaged, or carrying on, in a similar or identical industry may constitute a federation, so that: (1) the requirement of an excessively high minimum number of trade unions to establish a federation does not infringe the right of trade unions to establish and join federations of their own choosing; (2) workers have the right to establish federations of a broader occupational or interoccupational coverage; and (3) trade unions should not need to belong to more than one administrative division in order to federate.

Finally, the Committee had previously requested the Government to indicate whether rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules 1977 (IRR), which previously granted the Registrar overly broad authority to enter trade union offices, inspect documents, etc. without judicial review, had been repealed by the entry into force of the Labour Act 2006. The Committee noted that the Government stated, in this regard, that rule 10 of the IRR remains valid, and that – as its purpose was to maintain discipline in trade union administrations – it was not in favour of repealing the said provision. The Government further indicated that the workers’ representatives in the tripartite review process towards the enactment of the Labour Act had raised no objections to the Registrar’s authority in these matters. The Government further indicates in its report that if any union or federation is aggrieved about the procedure and verification by the Registrar, it can appeal to the labour court. The Government adds that the Registrar does not go to the office of a trade union or federation for inspection unless their secretary or president applies to the Registrar for removal of irregularities, which is frequent. The Committee once again recalls that the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration without interference by the public authorities includes, in particular, autonomy and financial independence and the protection of the assets and property of these organizations. There is no violation of the Convention if such verification is limited to exceptional cases, for example in order to investigate a complaint, or if there have been allegations of embezzlement. Both the substance and the procedure of such verifications should however always be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording every guarantee of impartiality and objectivity (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 124 and 125). The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal rule 10 of the IRR or amend it so as to ensure that this provision granting the Registrar authority to supervise trade union internal affairs is in line with the principles mentioned above.

The Committee takes due note once again of the Government’s statement that it is fully committed to ensuring compliance with the Convention and the promotion of freedom of association in the country, and expects that all measures will be taken to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee once again invites the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in respect of all the matters raised above.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Workers’ and employers’ organizations comments. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in previous years. With respect to ITUC allegations concerning acts of violence, physical assault and arrests of trade union leaders and trade unionists that participated in strikes in the garment sector, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (i) it is fully aware and committed to freedom of association free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind and that the labour situation has improved after lifting the state of emergency; (ii) some groups and persons were creating anarchy in industrial areas and were involved in criminal activities and in these circumstances, the police and intelligence agency have taken measures to maintain law and order situation and that people were arrested for criminal offences, not for taking part in trade union activities; (iii) to protect public properties and to clear the blockades organized in the garment sector, the law enforcement agencies had to interrogate some violence-creating persons, but they did not harass anyone, those actions were not aimed at harassing trade union leaders, nor to disrupt the trade union activities in the country and further, law enforcement agencies are performing their duties under directives and close supervision of the Ministry of Home Affairs; (iv) at that time, 350 women trade unionists, including the General Secretary of the Women’s Committee of the Jatiya Sramik League, were arrested as they were in the crowd but they were released after a while and no charges were brought against them; and (v) it believes that the rights of workers’ and employers’ organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind and that the laws do not allow any undue interference with trade union activities.

The Committee further notes the Bangladesh Employers’ Federation’s comments related to the ITUC’s allegations of acts of violence and that it indicated in particular that: (i) in the garment sector, trade unions are affiliated to different political parties and they act according to the instigated instruction of those political parties; (ii) killing, assaults and arrests are not at all desirable in workplaces; (iii) the reason of such undesirable acts is unawareness on the part of trade unions about the principle of freedom of association and that, therefore, workers carry out acts of vandalism, damage and blockade of the roads and highways for the realization of demands instead of negotiation or bipartite discussions; (iv) in such situation, the law enforcement authority has to enforce the law; and (v) under such circumstances, the workers as well as employers of the garment sector need to be educated through a process of training and awareness raising, which should explain the benefits of freedom of association to the workers’ and employers’ organizations. The Committee understands that the Government is availing itself of ILO technical assistance to raise awareness of freedom of association rights in the sector, and expects that this assistance will promote the full realization of these rights in the sector.

With respect to its request to indicate the status of the court case concerning the Bangladesh Garments and Industrial Sramik Federation (BGIWF) registration, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that the Department of Labour submitted the case for the cancellation of the registration of the BGIWF for violation of its constitution and unfair labour practice to the labour court in 2008 (No. 51 of 2008), and that the next hearing date was fixed on 16 November 2011. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the status of the registration of the BGIWF.

Finally, the Committee notes the comments submitted by the ITUC on 4 and 31 August 2011, concerning allegations of killings and physical assaults of protesters and arrests, detention, harassment and violence against trade union leaders notably in the garment sector, the maritime sector, the shrimp cultivation and processing industry and Export Processing Zones (EPZs) as well as the refusal by the Registrar of Trade Unions (RTU) to register new unions in the garment sector. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to carry out investigations concerning these serious allegations with a view to determining responsibilities and punishing those responsible, and to provide full particulars in this respect.

Right to organize in EPZs. The Committee had previously noted the ITUC’s allegation that the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) continued to raise obstacles to the establishment of workers’ associations in EPZs. The Committee notes that in its 2011 comments, the ITUC indicates that, although the EPZ Workers’ Association and Industrial Relations Act (2004) provided for the formation of trade unions in the EPZs, an amendment of this law in 2010, only replaced the term “Workers’ Association” by “Workers’ Welfare Society”, which means that the right to form trade unions in EPZs remains far off. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the BEPZA is doing its utmost to ensure that Workers’ Welfare Societies are established in all enterprises within the shortest possible time. The Committee requests the Government to: (i) provide information and statistics on the number of workers’ welfare societies established in the EPZs; and (ii) inform of all steps taken to amend legislation so that EPZ workers may fully exercise the rights guaranteed by the Convention.

The Committee further recalls that it had previously commented on the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2004, which contains numerous and significant restrictions and delays in relation to the right to organize in EPZs. The Committee noted that according to the Government, the BEPZA was aware of the Committee’s comments in this regard, which would be taken into consideration in the present review and amendment process of the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2004. The Committee notes with deep regret that in August 2010, the Parliament passed the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Society and Industrial Relations Act 2010 (EWWSIRA) without addressing any of its previous comments and that the EWWSIRA does not contain any real improvement in relation to the previous legislation.

In these circumstances, the Committee once again requests the Government to take all the necessary measures to bring the following provisions of the EWWSIRA into conformity with the Convention:

• -section 16, which provides that the Workers’ Welfare Society will not be allowed in industrial units established after the commencement of the Act until a period of three months has expired after the commencement of commercial production in the concerned unit;
• -section 17(1), which provides that there can be no more than one Workers’ Welfare Society per industrial unit;
• -sections 6, 7, 9 and 12, which establish excessive and complicated minimum membership and referendum requirements for the establishment of Workers’ Welfare Society (a Workers’ Welfare Society may be formed only when a minimum of 30 per cent of the eligible workers of an industrial unit seek its formation, and this has been verified by the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA, who shall then conduct a referendum on the basis of which the workers shall acquire the legitimate right to form an association under the Act, only if more than 50 per cent of the eligible workers cast their vote, and more than 50 per cent of the votes cast are in favour of the formation of the Workers’ Welfare Society);
• -section 9(2), which confers excessive powers to the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA concerning the approval of the Constitution Drafting Committee;
• -section 8, which prevents steps for the establishment of a Workers’ Welfare Society in the workplace for a period of one year after a first attempt failed to gather sufficient support in a referendum;
• -section 27, which permits the deregistration of a Workers’ Welfare Society at the request of 30 per cent of the workers even if they are not members of the association and prevents the establishment of another Workers’ Welfare Society for one year after the previous one was deregistered;
• -sections 28(1)(c), (e)–(h) and 34(1)(a), which provide for the cancellation of the registration of a Workers’ Welfare Society on grounds which do not appear to justify the severity of this sanction (such as contravention of any of the provisions of the association’s constitution);
• -section 46(3) and (4), which establishes a total prohibition of industrial action in EPZs until 31 October 2013 (section 81(1) and (2)) and provides for severe restrictions of strike action, once recognized (possibility to prohibit a strike if it continues for more than 15 days or even before this deadline, if the strike is considered as causing serious harm to productivity in the EPZ);
• -section 10(2), which prevents a Workers’ Welfare Society from obtaining or receiving any funds from any outside source without the prior approval of the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA;
• -section 24(1), which establishes an excessively high minimum number of associations to establish a higher level organization (more than 50 per cent of the Workers’ Welfare Societies in an EPZ);
• -section 24(3), which prohibits a federation from affiliating in any manner with federations in other EPZs and beyond EPZs; and
• -sections 20(1), 21 and 24(4), which do not seem to afford guarantees against interference with the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom (e.g. the procedure of election is to be determined by the BEPZA).

The Committee also notes new subsection 4 of section 38 concerning check off facilities which stipulates that “the executive council at the beginning of the calendar year shall, with the accounts statement of the previous year, submit for approval the current year’s revenue budget containing income-expenditure to the Executive Chairman or to an officer authorized by him”. The Committee recalls that measures of supervision over the administration of trade unions may only be useful if they are employed to prevent abuses and to protect the members of the trade union themselves against mismanagement of their funds. Measures of this kind may, in certain cases, entail a danger of interference by the public authorities in the administration of trade unions. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the scope of application of this new subsection 4 of section 38 and its impact on check-off facilities.

Moreover, the Committee notes that under section 80 of the EWWSIRA, Workers’ Welfare Societies are now prohibited from establishing any connection to any political parties or non-governmental organizations. The Committee recalls that provisions imposing a general prohibition on political activities by trade unions for the promotion of their specific objectives and provisions which restrict the freedom of trade unions to administer and utilize their funds as they wish for normal and lawful trade unions purposes are contrary to the principles of freedom of association. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal section 80 of the EWWSIRA.

The Committee further notes that a federation of the Workers’ Welfare Societies cannot be legally formed until BEPZA has issued regulations. According to the ITUC’s comments, to date, BEPZA has yet to issue these regulations, thus deliberately preventing the workers’ associations to form a federation in EPZs. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to issue the regulations concerning the right of Workers’ Welfare Societies to establish and join federations, in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention.

Other discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. The Committee once again recalls that for many years it had been referring to serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention. In previous comments, the Committee noted the adoption of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 (the Labour Act), which replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969, and noted with deep regret that the Labour Act did not contain any improvements in relation to the previous legislation and, in certain regards, contained even further restrictions which were contrary to the provisions of the Convention. The Committee took note of the Government’s statement that a tripartite labour law review committee to identify the gaps and discrepancies in the Labour Act and suggest the necessary amendments had been constituted, as well as its indication that the workers excluded from the Labour Act’s provisions were not covered by other legislation. The Committee notes the Government indicates in its report that the revision of the Labour Act with comments of all levels of stakeholders is under process and that a 22 member’s high-power tripartite committee headed by the State Minister of Labour and Employment has been constituted. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on any developments with regard to the review process referred to, including a copy of any relevant draft amendment, and expresses the firm hope that the Labour Act will soon be amended to remove the discrepancies previously identified, which it repeats as follows:

• -the need to repeal provisions on the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right to establish workers’ organizations (section 2 XLIX and LXV of the Labour Act) as well as new restrictions of the right to organize of firefighting staff, telex operators, fax operators and cipher assistants (exclusion from the provisions of the Act based on section 175 of the Labour Act). The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the telex and fax operators are allowed to exercise their trade union rights. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the legal provisions that grant trade union rights to the abovementioned workers;
• -the need to either amend section 1(4) of the Labour Act or adopt new legislation so as to ensure that the workers in the following sectors, which have been excluded from the scope of application of the Act including its provisions on freedom of association, have the right to organize: offices of or under the Government (except workers in the Railway Department, Posts, Telegraph and Telephone Departments, Roads and Highways Department, Public Works Department and Public Health Engineering Department and the Bangladesh Government Press); the security printing press; establishments for the treatment or care of the sick, infirm, aged, destitute, mentally disabled, orphans, abandoned children, widows or deserted women, which are not run for profit or gains; shops or stalls in public exhibitions which deal in retail trade; shops in any public fair for religious or charitable purposes; educational, training and research institutions; agricultural farms with less than ten workers; domestic servants; and establishments run by the owner with the aid of members of the family;
• -the need to repeal provisions which restrict membership in trade unions and participation in trade union elections to those workers who are currently employed in an establishment or group of establishments, including seafarers engaged in merchant shipping (section 2 LXV, 175 and 185(2) of the Labour Act);
• -the need to repeal or amend new provisions which define as an unfair labour practice on the part of a worker or trade union, an act aimed at “intimidating” any person to become, continue to be or cease to be a trade union member or officer, or “inducing” any person to cease to be a member or officer of a trade union by conferring or offering to confer any advantage and the consequent penalty of imprisonment for such acts (sections 196(2)(a) and (b) and 291 of the Labour Act); the Committee considers that the terms “intimidating” or “inducing” are too general and do not sufficiently safeguard against interference in internal trade union affairs, since, for instance, a common activity of trade unions is to recruit members by offering advantages, including with regard to other trade unions;
• -the need to repeal provisions which prevent workers from running for trade union office if they were previously convicted for compelling or attempting to compel the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement or to agree to any demand by using intimidation, pressure, threats, etc. (sections 196(2)(d) and 180(1)(a) of the Labour Act);
• -the need to lower the minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in an establishment or group of establishments for initial and continued union registration, as well as the possibility of deregistration if the membership falls below this number (sections 179(2) and 190(f) of the Labour Act); the need to repeal provisions which provide that no more than three trade unions shall be registered in any establishment or group of establishments (section 179(5) of the Labour Act) and that only one trade union of seafarers shall be registered (section 185(3) of the Labour Act); finally, the need to repeal provisions prohibiting workers from joining more than one trade union and the consequent penalty of imprisonment in case of violation of this prohibition (sections 193 and 300 of the Labour Act);
• -the need to repeal provisions denying the right of unregistered unions to collect funds (section 192 of the Labour Act) upon penalty of imprisonment (section 299 of the Labour Act);
• -the need to lift several restrictions on the right to strike: requirement for three-quarters of the members of a workers’ organization to consent to a strike (sections 211(1) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); possibility of prohibiting strikes which last more than 30 days (sections 211(3) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); possibility of prohibiting strikes at any time if a strike is considered prejudicial to the national interest (sections 211(3) and 227(c) of the Labour Act) or involves a public utility service including the generation, production, manufacture, or supply of gas and oil to the public, as well as railways, airways, road and river transport, ports and banking (sections 211(4) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); prohibition of strikes for a period of three years from the date of commencement of production in a new establishment, or an establishment owned by foreigners or established in collaboration with foreigners (sections 211(8) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); penalties of imprisonment for participation in – or instigation to take part in unlawful industrial action or go-slow (sections 196(2)(e), 291 and 294–296 of the Labour Act);
• -the need to repeal provisions which provide that no person refusing to take part in an illegal strike shall be subject to expulsion or any other disciplinary measure by the trade union, so as to leave this matter to be determined in accordance with trade union rules (section 229 of the Labour Act);
• -the need to amend new provisions which define as an unfair labour practice on the part of workers, an act of compelling or attempting to compel the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement or to accept or agree to any demand by using “intimidation”, “pressure”, “threat” so as to ensure that there is no interference with the right of trade unions to engage in activities like collective bargaining or strikes, and to repeal the consequent penalty of imprisonment for such acts (sections 196(d) and 291(2) of the Labour Act);
• -the need to amend provisions which impose a penalty of imprisonment for failure to appear before the conciliator in the framework of settlement of industrial disputes (section 301 of the Labour Act).

The Committee had previously requested the Government to indicate whether rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules 1977 (IRR), which previously granted the RTU overly broad authority to enter trade union offices, inspect documents, etc. without judicial review, had been repealed by the entry into force of the Labour Act 2006. The Committee noted that the Government stated, in this regard, that rule 10 of the IRR remains valid, and that – as its purpose was to maintain discipline in trade union administrations – it was not in favour of repealing the said provision. The Government further indicated that the workers’ representatives in the tripartite review process towards the enactment of the Labour Act had raised no objections to the RTU’s authority in these matters. In this respect, the Committee once again recalled that the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration without interference by the public authorities includes, in particular, autonomy and financial independence and the protection of the assets and property of these organizations. There is no violation of the Convention if such verification is limited to exceptional cases, for example in order to investigate a complaint, or if there have been allegations of embezzlement. Both the substance and the procedure of such verifications should however always be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording every guarantee of impartiality and objectivity (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 124–125). The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous comments in this regard. In these circumstances, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal rule 10 of the IRR or amend the latter so as to ensure that this provision granting the RTU authority to supervise trade union internal affairs is in line with the principles mentioned above.

The Committee takes due note once again of the Government’s statement that it is fully committed to ensuring compliance with the Convention and the promotion of freedom of association in the country. The Committee once again invites the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in respect of all the matters raised above.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 24 August 2010, concerning issues already raised by the Committee as well as serious allegations on killings and physical assaults of protesters and arrests of trade union leaders. The Committee recalls that freedom of association and in particular the right to organize under the Convention can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of workers’ organizations and that detention of trade unionists for reasons connected with their activities in defence of the interests of workers, constitutes a serious interference with civil liberties in general and with trade union rights in particular. In these circumstances, the Committee urges the Government to provide full particulars in respect of all the allegations of killings, physical assaults and detention of trade unionists and trade union leaders.

The Committee also requests the Government to send information on the other matters raised by the Committee in its 2009 observation (80th Session), for examination in the context of the regular reporting cycle in 2011.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2008. As concerns the ITUC’s allegations of violations of the Convention in the garment sector, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that the present Government was committed to ensuring workers’ freedom of association rights and intends to take all measures to protect workers’ rights, health and safety in the workplace, and that the establishment of the Minimum Wages Board to enhance garment workers’ minimum wages was in progress. The Government states that the aggrieved workers have the legal right to submit grievances to their employers, to lodge a complaint with the Government Inspection Department or in the Department of Labour, and to sue in the labour court if necessary. Moreover, in early 2008, a crisis management committee in the garment sector was constituted to face the crisis and solve the relevant issues amicably through negotiations. The Government further indicates, in this respect, that all citizens of Bangladesh have the right to seek the shelter of the law to protect their lives or property, and that it was closely monitoring the issues so that employers may not fire innocent workers at will.

With regard to the 2008 ITUC allegations concerning the arrest and detention of the General Secretary of the Dhaka University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) and four other professors, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the cases have been concluded and the teachers released. In respect of the allegation that, despite a tripartite agreement signed on 12 June 2006 to withdraw cases lodged against the workers in 2006 and release the arrested persons in Gazipur, Tongi, Savar and Ashulia Police Stations, Cases Nos 49/06, 50/06 and 51/06 against workers which were under the jurisdiction of the Joydevpur Police Station were yet to be withdrawn, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that it was taking initiatives to withdraw all three cases under the Joydevpur Police Station’s jurisdiction – which concerned a total of 41 persons – in accordance with the 2006 tripartite agreement.

Previously, the Committee had requested the Government to provide its observations on the ITUC’s allegation that the Joint Director for Labour (JDL), who is responsible for registering trade unions, refused to take any action on pending union registration applications in 2007, particularly in the textiles sector. It had also requested the Government to indicate the status of the Bangladesh Garments and Industrial Sramik Federation (BGIWF), which according to the ITUC had faced deregistration. The Government indicates, in this regard, that due to the declaration of an emergency in 2007 some constitutional and labour law provisions relating to trade union formation and registration were suspended – thus rendering trade union registration impossible that year. The Government adds that since January 2009, 73 trade unions have been registered. As concerns the BGIWF, the Government states that the Registrar of Trade Unions had applied to the Court seeking the cancellation of the BGIWF’s registration; while the case was presently under examination the BGIWF remains a registered organization under the law and is freely pursuing its activities. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the status of the court case concerning the BGIWF’s registration, the reason for the cancellation request by the Registrar and to provide a copy of the court’s judgement should it have been rendered.

The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, it had requested information on: (i) the measures taken, including instructions given to the law enforcement authorities, so as to avoid the danger of excessive violence in trying to control demonstrations, and ensure that arrests are made only where criminal acts have been committed; (ii) the charges brought in 2004 against 350 women trade unionists, including the General Secretary of the JSL’s Women’s Committee, Shamsur Nahar Bhuiyan and all judicial decisions taken in this matter; and (iii) the measures taken to ensure the prompt registration of Immaculate (Pvt) Ltd Sramik Union. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (1) it is fully aware and committed to freedom of association free from violence, pressure of threat of any kind, and that the necessary provisions are laid down in the laws. Arrests, furthermore, are only made pursuant to the law and when crimes are committed; (2) the law enforcement authorities are to avoid unnecessary violence, and the situation is monitored through monthly meetings of the Crisis Management Committee, comprised of officials of different law enforcement authorities. Moreover, at present there is no worker or trade union leader arrested for participation in demonstrations; (3) the charges brought in 2004 against the 350 women trade unionists had been dropped – they are presently free and enjoying the exercise of their trade union rights; and (4) the Director of Labour, who is responsible for trade union registration, is still awaiting the application for registration of the Immaculate (Pvt) Ltd Sramik Union; the Department of Labour (DOL) would take prompt measures to register the union upon receipt of its application. In these circumstances, the Committee expresses the hope that, once the Immaculate (Pvt) Ltd Sramik Union’s application is received, the Government will actively pursue measures to ensure the union’s prompt registration.

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the ITUC in a communication dated 26 August 2009. The ITUC alleges additional violations of the Convention in 2008. In particular, the ITUC refers to the following violations in the garment sector: the arrest of and bringing of charges (later dropped) against members and leaders of the Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers Union Federation (BIGWUF), the Shawdhin Bangla Garments Sramik Karmachari Federation (SBGSKF), the Textile Garments Workers Federation (TGWF), the Bangladesh Posak Shilpo Sramik Federation (BPSSF), and the National Garment Workers Federation (NGWF); the imprisonment from September to December of the President of the New Modern Garment Workers and Employees Union (NMGWEU); the beating of female garment workers for having participated in a strike; and arrests, detentions and physical assault by the police against numerous workers from more than a dozen garment factories. The Committee recalls once again that freedom of association can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of workers’ organizations and that detention of trade unionists for reasons connected with their activities in defence of the interests of workers, constitutes a serious interference with civil liberties in general and with trade union rights in particular. The Committee notes with concern these allegations and requests the Government to provide full particulars in respect of the ITUC’s allegations.

Right to organize in export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee had previously noted the ITUC’s allegation that the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) continued to raise obstacles to the establishment of workers’ associations in EPZs – even though section 13(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2004 provided that workers had the right to apply to form workers’ associations after the deadline of 31 October 2006 – and had requested the Government to provide statistical information on the number of workers’ associations established in the EPZs after 1 November 2006. The Government indicates that it has, through a letter sent to all enterprises, encouraged the formation of workers’ associations as of 1 November 2006. To date, workers’ associations have been established in 188 enterprises, or 75.20 per cent of all the eligible enterprises. In this connection, the Committee notes that in its 2009 comments the ITUC alleges a number of restrictions on freedom of association rights in the EPZ sector. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in this respect.

The Committee further recalls that it had previously commented on the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2004, which contains numerous and significant restrictions and delays in relation to the right to organize in EPZs. The Committee notes that according to the Government, the BEPZA is aware of the Committee’s comments in this regard, which would be taken into consideration in the present review and amendment process of the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2004. In these circumstances, the Committee expresses the hope that the review and amendment process referred to by the Government would soon bring the following provisions of the said Act into conformity with the Convention, in line with its previous comments:

–      section 24, which provides that workers’ associations will not be allowed in industrial units established after the commencement of the Act until a period of three months has expired after the commencement of commercial production in the concerned unit;

–      section 25(1), which provides that there can be no more than one workers’ association per industrial unit;

–      sections 14, 15, 17 and 20, which establish excessive and complicated minimum membership and referendum requirements for the establishment of workers’ associations (a workers’ association may be formed only when a minimum of 30 per cent of the eligible workers of an industrial unit seek its formation, and this has been verified by the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA, who shall then conduct a referendum on the basis of which the workers shall acquire the legitimate right to form an association under the Act, only if more than 50 per cent of the eligible workers cast their vote, and more than 50 per cent of the votes cast are in favour of the formation of the workers’ association);

–      section 17(2), which confers excessive powers of approval of the Constitution Drafting Committee to the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA;

–      section 16, which prevents steps for the establishment of a workers’ association in the workplace for a period of one year after a first attempt failed to gather sufficient support in a referendum;

–      section 35, which permits the deregistration of a workers’ association at the request of 30 per cent of the workers even if they are not members of the association and prevents the establishment of another trade union for one year after the previous trade union was deregistered;

–      sections 36(1)(c), (e)–(h) and 42(1)(a), which provide for the cancellation of the registration of a workers’ association on grounds which do not appear to justify the severity of this sanction (such as contravention of any of the provisions of the association’s constitution);

–      sections 54(3) and (4), which establish a total prohibition of industrial action in EPZs until 31 October 2008 (section 88(1) and (2)); provides for severe restrictions of strike action, once recognized (possibility to prohibit a strike if it continues for more than 15 days or even before this deadline, if the strike is considered as causing serious harm to productivity in the EPZ);

–      section 18(2), which prevents workers’ associations from obtaining or receiving any fund from any outside source without the prior approval of the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA;

–      section 32(1), which establishes an excessively high minimum number of trade unions to establish a higher level organization (more than 50 per cent of the workers’ associations in an EPZ);

–      section 32(3), which prohibits a federation from affiliating in any manner with federations in other EPZs and beyond EPZs; and

–      sections 5(6) and (7), 28(1), 29, and 32(4), which do not seem to afford guarantees against interference with the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom (e.g. the procedure of election is to be determined by the BEPZA).

The Committee further requests the Government to indicate any developments concerning the amendment and review process in its next report.

Other discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. The Committee recalls that for many years it had been referring to serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the adoption of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 (the Labour Act), which replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969, and noted with deep regret that the Labour Act did not contain any improvements in relation to the previous legislation and, in certain regards, contained even further restrictions which were contrary to the provisions of the Convention. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that a tripartite labour law review committee to identify the gaps and discrepancies in the Labour Act and suggest the necessary amendments had been constituted, as well as its indication that the workers excluded from the Labour Act’s provisions were not covered by other legislation. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of developments with regard to the review process referred to and expresses the firm hope that the Labour Act will soon be amended in line with the discrepancies previously identified, which it repeats as follows:

–      the need to repeal provisions on the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right to establish workers’ organizations (section 2 XLIX and LXV of the Labour Act) as well as new restrictions of the right to organize of firefighting staff, telex operators, fax operators and cipher assistants (exclusion from the provisions of the Act based on section 175 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to either amend section 1(4) of the Labour Act or adopt new legislation so as to ensure that the workers in the following sectors, which have been excluded from the scope of application of the Act including its provisions on freedom of association, have the right to organize: offices of or under the Government (except workers in the Railway Department, Posts, Telegraph and Telephone Departments, Roads and Highways Department, Public Works Department and Public Health Engineering Department and the Bangladesh Government Press); the security printing press; establishments for the treatment or care of the sick, infirm, aged, destitute, mentally disabled, orphans, abandoned children, widows or deserted women, which are not run for profit or gains; shops or stalls in public exhibitions which deal in retail trade; shops in any public fair for religious or charitable purposes; educational, training and research institutions; agricultural farms with less than ten workers; domestic servants; and establishments run by the owner with the aid of members of the family.

–      the need to repeal provisions which restrict membership in trade unions and participation in trade union elections to those workers who are currently employed in an establishment or group of establishments, including seafarers currently engaged in merchant shipping (section 2 LXV and 175, 185(2) of the Labour Act);

–      the need to repeal or amend new provisions which define as an unfair labour practice on the part of a worker or trade union, an act aimed at “intimidating” any person to become, continue to be or cease to be a trade union member or officer, or “inducing” any person to cease to be a member or officer of a trade union by conferring or offering to confer any advantage and the consequent penalty of imprisonment for such acts (sections 196(2)(a) and (b) and 291 of the Labour Act); the Committee considers that the terms “intimidating” or “inducing” are too general and do not sufficiently safeguard against interference in internal trade union affairs, since, for instance, a common activity of trade unions is to recruit members by offering advantages, including with regard to other trade unions;

–      the need to repeal provisions which prevent workers from running for trade union office if they were previously convicted for compelling or attempting to compel the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement or to agree to any demand by using intimidation, pressure, threats, etc. (sections 196(2)(d) and 180(1)(a) of the Labour Act);

–      the need to lower the minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in an establishment or group of establishments for initial and continued union registration, as well as the possibility of deregistration if the membership falls below this number (sections 179(2) and 190(f) of the Labour Act); the need to repeal provisions which provide that no more than three trade unions shall be registered in any establishment or group of establishments (section 179(5) of the Labour Act) and that only one trade union of seafarers shall be registered (section 185(3) of the Labour Act); finally, the need to repeal provisions prohibiting workers from joining more than one trade union and the consequent penalty of imprisonment in case of violation of this prohibition (sections 193 and 300 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to repeal provisions denying the right of unregistered unions to collect funds (section 192 of the Labour Act) upon penalty of imprisonment (section 299 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to lift several restrictions on the right to strike: requirement for three-quarters of the members of a workers’ organization to consent to a strike (sections 211(1) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); possibility of prohibiting strikes which last more than 30 days (sections 211(3) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); possibility of prohibiting strikes at any time if a strike is considered prejudicial to the national interest (sections 211(3) and 227(c) of the Labour Act) or involves a public utility service including the generation, production, manufacture, or supply of gas and oil to the public, as well as railways, airways, road and river transport, ports and banking (sections 211(4) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); prohibition of strikes for a period of three years from the date of commencement of production in a new establishment, or an establishment owned by foreigners or established in collaboration with foreigners (sections 211(8) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); penalties of imprisonment for participation in – or instigation to take part in unlawful industrial action or go-slow (sections 196(2)(e) and 291, 294–296 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to repeal provisions which provide that no person refusing to take part in an illegal strike shall be subject to expulsion or any other disciplinary measure by the trade union, so as to leave this matter to be determined in accordance with trade union rules (section 229 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to amend new provisions which define as an unfair labour practice on the part of workers, an act of compelling or attempting to compel the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement or to accept or agree to any demand by using “intimidation”, “pressure”, “threat” so as to ensure that there is no interference with the right of trade unions to engage in activities like collective bargaining or strikes, and to repeal the consequent penalty of imprisonment for such acts (sections 196(d) and 291(2) of the Labour Act);

–      the need to amend provisions which impose a penalty of imprisonment for failure to appear before the conciliator in the framework of settlement of industrial disputes (section 301 of the Labour Act).

The Committee had previously requested the Government to indicate whether rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules 1977 (IRR), which previously granted the Registrar of Trade Unions (RTU) overly broad authority to enter trade union offices, inspect documents, etc., without judicial review, had been repealed by the entry into force of the Labour Act 2006. The Committee notes that the Government states, in this regard, that rule 10 of the IRR remains valid, and that – as its purpose was to maintain discipline in trade union administrations – it was not in favour of repealing the said provision. The Government further indicates that the workers’ representatives in the tripartite review process towards the enactment of the Labour Act had raised no objections to the RTU’s authority in these matters. In this respect, the Committee must once again recall that the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration without interference by the public authorities includes in particular, autonomy and financial independence and the protection of the assets and property of these organizations. There is no violation of the Convention if such verification is limited to exceptional cases, for example in order to investigate a complaint, or if there have been allegations of embezzlement. Both the substance and the procedure of such verifications should however always be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording every guarantee of impartiality and objectivity [see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 124 and 125]. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal rule 10 of the IRR or amend the latter so as to ensure that the Registrar of Trade Unions’ (RTU) authority to supervise a trade union’s internal affairs conforms to the principles mentioned above.

The Committee takes due note of the Government’s statement that it was fully committed to ensuring compliance with the Convention and the promotion of freedom of association in the country. The Committee invites the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in respect of all the matters raised above.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received and takes note of the discussion that took place at the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2008.

The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it took note of an extensive list of serious violations of workers’ basic civil liberties which, according to the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), had been committed in 2006 in the context of a strike and a riot in the garment sector and a reported harsh crackdown by the army’s rapid action battalion; the ITUC had also referred to the death of a striking worker, numerous arrests of trade union leaders, the raiding of trade union offices and police harassment.

The Committee takes note of the comments made by the ITUC in a communication dated 29 August 2008, with regard to alleged violations committed in 2007 including the arrest and detention of the General Secretary of Dhaka University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) and intimidation of unions by the military and security forces, the Government and employers. The Committee also notes that despite a tripartite agreement signed on 12 June 2006 to withdraw cases lodged against the workers in 2006 and release the arrested persons in Gazipur, Tongi, Savar and Ashulia Police Stations, Cases Nos 49/06, 50/06 and 51/06 against workers which are under the jurisdiction of the Joydevpur Police Station are yet to be withdrawn.

The Committee notes from the statement of the Government representative to the Conference Committee that all those arrested had been released on bail and the Government was not actively pursuing their cases. There were over 5,000 factories in the country with 2.5 million workers and it was not easy to maintain law and order in all of the factories. The Government was committed to ensuring law and order in factories with the utmost restraint.

The Committee regrets that the Government has not provided full particulars in respect of all the allegations of arrest, harassment and detention of trade unionists and trade union leaders as requested by the Conference Committee. Recalling that freedom of association can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of workers’ organizations and that detention of trade unionists for reasons connected with their activities in defence of the interests of workers, constitutes a serious interference with civil liberties in general and with trade union rights in particular, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide full particulars in respect of all the allegations of arrest, harassment and detention of trade unionists and trade union leaders.

Furthermore, the Committee reiterates its previous requests for information on: (i) measures taken, including instructions given to the law enforcement authorities, so as to avoid the danger of excessive violence in trying to control demonstrations, and ensure that arrests are made only where criminal acts have been committed; (ii) the charges brought in 2004 against 350 women trade unionists, including the General Secretary of the JSL’s Women’s Committee, Shamsur Nahar Bhuiyan and all judicial decisions taken in this matter; and (iii) the measures taken to ensure the prompt registration of Immaculate (Pvt) Ltd Sramik Union.

The Committee notes that according to the latest communication by the ITUC, throughout 2007 the Joint Director for Labour (JDL) who is responsible for registering new trade unions refused to take any actions on pending union registration applications, particularly in the textiles sector, thereby effectively denying workers their right to association and bargain collectively; the ITUC also refers to processes initiated to deregister the Bangladesh Garments and Industrial Sramik Federation (BGIWF) and threats to deregister two other federations which cooperated with the petition of the AFL–CIO lodged before the Office of the US Trade Representative seeking the revocation of Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) privileges for Bangladesh. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in this regard and to indicate the number of trade unions registered in 2007, particularly in the textile sector, as well as the current status of the BGIWF.

The Committee also recalls that its previous comments concerned the following issues.

Right to organize in export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee notes that according to the previous comments made by the ITUC, the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) continued to raise obstacles to the establishment of workers’ associations in EPZs after the deadline of
31 October 2006 set in section 13(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2004; although after this deadline, workers had the right to apply to form workers’ associations the BEPZA allegedly failed to devise and provide the prescribed form needed by the workers to this effect, thus preventing in practice the establishment of such associations; the ITUC adds in its latest communication that following the filing of the AFL–CIO petition on the revocation of GSP privileges, delaying tactics at BEPZA relented and workers were provided the opportunity to register their intent to form workers’ associations and participate in elections to formally establish them; in the final months of 2007, many workers’ associations went through the election process, frequently with over 90 per cent of the workers in favour; nevertheless, employers continued to refuse to substantively accept their role or to enter into negotiations with them. The Committee requests the Government to communicate its observations in this regard and to provide statistical information on the number of workers’ associations established in the EPZs after 1 November 2006.

The Committee further recalls that the EPZ workers’ associations and Industrial Relations Act 2004, contains numerous and significant restrictions and delays in relation to the right to organize in EPZs and, in particular:

(i)     provides that workers’ associations will not be allowed in industrial units established after the commencement of the Act, until a period of three months has expired after the commencement of commercial production in the concerned unit (section 24);

(ii)     provides that there can be no more than one workers’ association per industrial unit (section 25(1));

(iii)    establishes excessive and complicated minimum membership and referendum requirements for the establishment of workers’ associations (a workers’ association may be formed only when a minimum of 30 per cent of the eligible workers of an industrial unit seek its formation, and this has been verified by the Executive Chairperson of BEPZA, who shall then conduct a referendum on the basis of which the workers shall acquire the legitimate right to form an association under the Act, only if more than 50 per cent of the eligible workers cast their vote, and more than 50 per cent of the votes cast are in favour of the formation of the workers’ association (sections 14, 15, 17 and 20);

(iv)    confers excessive powers of approval of the constitution drafting committee to the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA (section 17(2));

(v)    prevents steps for the establishment of a workers’ association in the workplace for a period of one year after a first attempt failed to gather sufficient support in a referendum (section 16);

(vi)    permits the deregistration of a workers’ association at the request of 30 per cent of the workers even if they are not members of the association and prevents the establishment of another trade union for one year after the previous trade union was deregistered (section 35);

(vii)   provides for the cancellation of the registration of a workers’ association on grounds which do not appear to justify the severity of this sanction (such as contravention of any of the provisions of the association’s constitution) (sections 36(1)(c), (e)–(h) and 42(1)(a));

(viii)  establishes a total prohibition of industrial action in EPZs until 31 October 2008 (section 88(1) and (2)); provides for severe restrictions of strike action, once recognized (possibility to prohibit a strike if it continues for more than 15 days or even before this deadline, if the strike is considered as causing serious harm to productivity in the EPZ (section 54(3) and (4));

(ix)    prevents workers’ associations from obtaining or receiving any fund from any outside source without the prior approval of the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA (section 18(2));

(x)    establishes an excessively high minimum number of trade unions to establish a higher level organization (more than 50 per cent of the workers’ associations in an EPZ (section 32(1));

(xi)    prohibits a federation from affiliating in any manner with federations in other EPZs and beyond EPZs (section 32(3)); and

(xii)   does not seem to afford guarantees against interference with the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom (e.g. the procedure of election shall be determined by the BEPZA, etc. (sections 5(6) and (7), 28(1), 29 and 32(4)).

The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the EPZ workers’ associations and Industrial Relations Act so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and to provide detailed information in its next report in this respect.

Other discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. The Committee recalls that for many years it had been referring to serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention. It now notes the adoption of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 (the Labour Act) which replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 (section 353(1)(x)).

The Committee notes with deep regret that the new Act does not contain any improvements in relation to the previous legislation and in certain regards contains even further restrictions which run against the provisions of the Convention. Thus, the Committee notes the following:

–      the need to repeal provisions on the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right to establish workers’ organizations (section 2 XLIX and LXV of the Labour Act) as well as new restrictions of the right to organize of fire-fighting staff, telex operators, fax operators and cipher assistants (exclusion from the provisions of the Act based on section 175 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to either amend section 1(4) of the Labour Act or adopt new legislation so as to ensure that the workers in the following sectors, which have been excluded from the scope of application of the Act including its provisions on freedom of association, have the right to organize: offices of or under the Government (except workers in the Railway Department, Posts, Telegraph and Telephone Departments, Roads and Highways Department, Public Works Department and Public Health Engineering Department and the Bangladesh Government Press); the security printing press; establishments for the treatment or care of the sick, infirm, aged, destitute, mentally disabled, orphans, abandoned children, widows or deserted women, which are not run for profit or gains; shops or stalls in public exhibitions which deal in retail trade; shops in any public fair for religious or charitable purposes; educational, training and research institutions; agricultural farms with less than ten workers; domestic servants; and establishments run by the owner with the aid of members of the family. In case any of the above sectors are already covered by existing legislation, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect;

–      the need to repeal provisions which restrict membership in trade unions and participation in trade union elections to those workers who are currently employed in an establishment or group of establishments, including seafarers currently engaged in merchant shipping (section 2 LXV and 175, 185(2) of the Labour Act);

–      the need to repeal or amend new provisions which define as an unfair labour practice on the part of a worker or trade union, an act aimed at “intimidating” any person to become, continue to be or cease to be a trade union member or officer, or “inducing” any person to cease to be a member or officer of a trade union by conferring or offering to confer any advantage and the consequent penalty of imprisonment for such acts (sections 196(2)(a) and (b) and 291 of the Labour Act); the Committee considers that the terms “intimidating” or “inducing” are too general and do not sufficiently safeguard against interference in internal trade union affairs, since, for instance, a common activity of trade unions is to recruit members by offering advantages, including with regard to other trade unions;

–      the need to repeal provisions which prevent workers from running for trade union office if they were previously convicted for compelling or attempting to compel the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement or to agree to any demand by using intimidation, pressure, threats, etc. (sections 196(2)(d) and 180(1)(a) of the Labour Act);

–      the need to lower the minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in an establishment or group of establishments for initial and continued union registration, as well as the possibility of deregistration if the membership falls below this number (sections 179(2) and 190(f) of the Labour Act); the need to repeal provisions which provide that no more than three trade unions shall be registered in any establishment or group of establishments (section 179(5) of the Labour Act) and that only one trade union of seafarers shall be registered (section 185(3) of the Labour Act); finally, the need to repeal provisions prohibiting workers from joining more than one trade union and the consequent penalty of imprisonment in case of violation of this prohibition (sections 193 and 300 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to repeal provisions denying the right of unregistered unions to collect funds (section 192 of the Labour Act) upon penalty of imprisonment (section 299 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to lift several restrictions on the right to strike: requirement for three-quarters of the members of a workers’ organization to consent to a strike (sections 211(1) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); possibility of prohibiting strikes which last more than 30 days (sections 211(3) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); possibility of prohibiting strikes at any time if a strike is considered prejudicial to the national interest (sections 211(3) and 227(c) of the Labour Act) or involves a public utility service including the generation, production, manufacture, or supply of gas and oil to the public, as well as railways, airways, road and river transport, ports and banking (sections 211(4) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); prohibition of strikes for a period of three years from the date of commencement of production in a new establishment, or an establishment owned by foreigners or established in collaboration with foreigners (sections 211(8) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); penalties of imprisonment for participation in – or instigation to take part in unlawful industrial action or go-slow (sections 196(2)(e) and 291, 294–296 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to repeal provisions which provide that no person refusing to take part in an illegal strike shall be subject to expulsion or any other disciplinary measure by the trade union, so as to leave this matter to be determined in accordance with trade union rules (section 229 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to amend new provisions which define as an unfair labour practice on the part of workers, an act of compelling or attempting to compel the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement or to accept or agree to any demand by using “intimidation”, “pressure”, “threat” so as to ensure that there is no interference with the right of trade unions to engage in activities like collective bargaining or strikes, and to repeal the consequent penalty of imprisonment for such acts (sections 196(d) and 291(2) of the Labour Act);

–      the need to amend provisions which impose a penalty of imprisonment for failure to appear before the conciliator in the framework of settlement of industrial disputes (section 301 of the Labour Act).

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to bring the Labour Act 2006 into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee also notes that it is not clear from the provisions of the Labour Act whether rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules 1977 (IRO) which previously granted the Registrar of Trade Unions overly broad authority to enter trade union offices, inspect documents, etc., without judicial review, has been repealed. It would appear from section 353(2)(a) that the rule remains in force, as the section in question provides that any rule under any provision of the repealed laws (including the IRO) shall have effect until altered, amended, rescinded or repealed, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Labour Act 2006. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether rule 10 of the IRO has been repealed by the entry into force of the Labour Act 2006 and, if not, to indicate the measures taken or contemplated with a view to its repeal or amendment.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and its reply to the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), now the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), in 2006. It also takes note of the adoption of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, which replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and on which it comments further below.

The Committee also notes the comments sent by the ITUC in a communication dated 27 August 2007 with regard to legislative issues already raised by the Committee and serious allegations of civil rights violations committed in 2006: (i) the killing of a striker by the police on 23 May 2006 in the context of a strike in the garment sector at Gazipur, which led to a riot on the same day, in particular in the Savar EPZ and the districts of Uttara, Mirpur, Kafrul, Old Dhaka, and Tejgaeon; according to the ITUC, the riot was followed by a harsh crackdown by the army’s rapid action battalion with hundreds of workers arrested; (ii) the raiding of the offices of the Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers’ Union Federation (BIGUF) on the same day (23 May 2006), the arrest of two BIGUF union organizers (Rashedul Alom Faju and Rebecca Khatun) and an office staff person (Minara) and their physical abuse while in police custody; their subsequent charging with destruction of property, vandalism and other charges connected to the labour unrest of that day; (iii) the arrest on the same day (23 May 2006) of Moshrefa Mishu, President of the Garment Workers’ Union Forum and her detention for five days (allowed bail on 26 May) and the filing of 19 charges against her in connection with the same events; (iv) the arrest on 13 October 2006 of Chandon, International Secretary of BIGUF and his interrogation throughout the night about BIGUF’s activities to organize workers in the EPZs; (v) police harassment against the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, set up by AFL–CIO, after publishing a pamphlet for EPZ workers; (vi) the arrest of three top leaders of the Bangladesh Cha Sramik Union (BCSU) on 24 March 2006 on charges which had already been investigated and found groundless the year before (released on bail on 13 April 2006) and brutal dispersion by the police of the BCSU members gathered outside the police station; (vii) assault against and serious injury of Roy Ramesh Chadra, General Secretary of the Bangladesh National Council of Textile, Garment and Leather Workers and an executive committee member of ITGLWF-TWARO on 14 April 2006; (viii) shots fired on 10 May 2006 against Mohammed Firoz Mia, President of the Bangladesh Telejogajog Sramik Karmochari Union which represents workers at the Bangladesh Telephone and Telegraph Board, who was actively campaigning against privatization. Recalling that freedom of association can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of workers’ organizations and that detention of trade unionists for reasons connected with their activities in defence of the interests of workers constitutes a serious interference with civil liberties in general and with trade union rights in particular, the Committee requests the Government to communicate its observations on the very serious comments made by the ITUC.

With regard to additional civil liberties violations communicated by the ICFTU in previous communications, including harassment of unions by the intelligence authorities, police violence against protesting workers, arrest of trade unionists, as well as the difficulty in establishing trade unions in the ship recycling industry, the Committee notes the Government’s observations according to which trade unions have not been harassed by the law enforcement agencies but rather the law enforcement agencies were obliged to perform their duties in cases where trade union leaders leading a procession, rally or demonstration were not in control of the mob so that unruly people would start to rampage, damage property, barricade highways, etc.; moreover, although workers in any sector have the right to establish trade unions under the new Labour Law of 2006, workers in the shipbreaking sector are casual workers and do not get an opportunity to form unions, because of the limited period of their employment (connected to the breaking of a specific ship). The Committee recalls that Article 8 of the Convention provides that workers and their organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the law of the land and that the law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied so as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention. In this regard, the Committee wishes to emphasize that the authorities should resort to the use of force only in situations where law and order is seriously threatened. The intervention of the forces of order should be in due proportion to the danger to law and order that the authorities are attempting to control and governments should take measures to ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to eliminate the danger entailed by the use of excessive violence when controlling demonstrations which might result in a disturbance of the peace. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that, by virtue of  Article 2 of the Convention, workers without distinction whatsoever, including casual and informal sector workers in the shipbreaking industry, shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any measures taken, including instructions given to the law enforcement authorities, so as to avoid the danger of excessive violence in trying to control demonstrations, and ensure that arrests are made only where criminal acts have been committed.

With regard to its previous comments concerning the arrest of 350 women trade unionists including the General Secretary of the JSL Women’s Committee, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that in 2004, in order to maintain law and order, the law enforcement agencies had to detain a few women from a mob while they were on a rampage, damaging a number of factories, barricading a highway, etc.; specific charges had been brought against them immediately after the incident as per the law of the land. The case (No. 7 of 2004) is still pending and a copy of judicial decisions may be communicated to the Committee as and when pronounced. The Committee requests the Government to communicate details as to the charges brought in 2004 against 350 women trade unionists, including the General Secretary of the JSL’s Women’s Committee, Shamsur Nahar Bhuiyan and to provide a copy of all judicial decisions taken in this matter. Moreover, noting with regret that the Government does not provide any information on the registration of Immaculate (Pvt.) Ltd Sramik Union despite previous requests to this effect, the Committee once again requests the Government to report on the measures taken to ensure the prompt registration of the union.

The Committee further recalls that its previous comments concerned the following issues:

1. Right to organize in export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee recalls that the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act, 2004, contains numerous and significant restrictions and delays in relation to the right to organize in EPZs and in particular: (i) contained a blanket denial of the right to organize in EPZs until 31 October 2006 after which workers’ associations may be established (section 13(1)); the Committee notes that this deadline has been met and takes note of the latest communication of the ITUC, according to which, on 1 November 2006, workers had the right to apply to form workers’ associations but the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) failed to devise and provide the prescribed form needed by the workers to this effect, thus preventing in practice the establishment of such associations; (ii) provides that workers’ associations will not be allowed in industrial units established after the commencement of the Act, until a period of three months has expired after the commencement of commercial production in the concerned unit (section 24); (iii) provides that there can be no more than one workers’ association per industrial unit (section 25(1)); (iv) establishes excessive and complicated minimum membership and referendum requirements for the establishment of workers’ associations (a workers’ association may be formed only when a minimum of 30 per cent of the eligible workers of an industrial unit seek its formation, and this has been verified by the executive chairperson of BEPZA, who shall then conduct a referendum on the basis of which the workers shall acquire the legitimate right to form an association under the Act, only if more than 50 per cent of the eligible workers cast their vote, and more than 50 per cent of the votes cast are in favour of the formation of the workers’ association sections 14, 15, 17 and 20); (v) confers excessive powers of approval of the constitution drafting committee to the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA (section 17(2)); (vi) prevents steps for the establishment of a workers’ association in the workplace for a period of one year after a first attempt failed to gather sufficient support in a referendum (section 16); (vii) permits the deregistration of a workers’ association at the request of 30 per cent of the workers even if they are not members of the association and prevents the establishment of another trade union for one year after the previous trade union was deregistered (section 35); (viii) provides for the cancellation of the registration of a workers’ association on grounds which do not appear to justify the severity of this sanction (such as contravention of any of the provisions of the association’s constitution) (section 36(1)(c), (e)–(h) and 42(1)(a)); (ix) establishes a total prohibition of industrial action in EPZs until 31 October 2008 (section 88(1) and (2)); (x) prevents workers’ associations from obtaining or receiving any fund from any outside source without the prior approval of the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA (section 18(2)); (xi) provides for severe restrictions of strike action, once recognized (possibility to prohibit a strike if it continues for more than 15 days or even before this deadline, if the strike is considered as causing serious harm to productivity in the EPZ – section 54(3) and (4)); (xii) establishes an excessively high minimum number of trade unions to establish a higher level organization (more than 50 per cent of the workers’ associations in an EPZ – section 32(1)); (xiii) prohibits a federation from affiliating in any manner with federations in other EPZs and beyond EPZs (section 32(3)); and (xiv) does not seem to afford guarantees against interference with the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom (e.g., the procedure of election shall be determined by the BEPZA, etc. – sections 5(6) and (7), 28(1), 29, 32(4)). Noting that the Government’s report does not provide any new information in respect of the above, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and to provide detailed information in its next report in this respect. It also requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments made by the ICFTU concerning obstacles to the establishment of workers’ associations in EPZs after 1 November 2006 and to provide statistical information on the number of workers’ associations established in the EPZs after that date.

2. Other discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. The Committee recalls that for many years it had been referring to serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention. It now notes the adoption of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 (the Labour Act) which replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (section 353(1)(x)).

The Committee notes with deep regret that the new Act does not contain any improvements in relation to the previous legislation and in certain regards contains even further restrictions which run against the provisions of the Convention. Thus, the Committee notes the following:

–           the need to repeal provisions on the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right to establish workers’ organizations (section 2 XLIX and LXV of the Labour Act) as well as new restrictions of the right to organize of fire-fighting staff, telex operators, fax operators and cipher assistants (exclusion from the provisions of the Act based on section 175 of the Labour Act);

–           the need to either amend section 1(4) of the Labour Act or adopt new legislation so as to ensure that the workers in the following sectors, which have been excluded from the scope of application of the Act including its provisions on freedom of association, have the right to organize: offices of or under the Government (except workers in the Railway Department, Posts, Telegraph and Telephone Departments, Roads and Highways Department, Public Works Department and Public Health Engineering Department and the Bangladesh Government Press); the security printing press; establishments for the treatment or care of the sick, infirm, aged, destitute, mentally disabled, orphans, abandoned children, widows or deserted women, which are not run for profit or gains; shops or stalls in public exhibitions which deal in retail trade; shops in any public fair for religious or charitable purposes; educational, training and research institutions; agricultural farms with less than ten workers; domestic servants; and establishments run by the owner with the aid of members of the family; in case any of the above sectors are already covered by existing legislation, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect;

–           the need to repeal provisions which restrict membership in trade unions and participation in trade union elections to those workers who are currently employed in an establishment or group of establishments, including seamen currently engaged in merchant shipping (section 2 LXV and 175, 185(2) of the Labour Act);

–           the need to repeal or amend new provisions which define as an unfair labour practice on the part of a worker or trade union, an act aimed at “intimidating” any person to become, continue to be or cease to be a trade union member or officer, or “inducing” any person to cease to be a member or officer of a trade union by conferring or offering to confer any advantage and the consequent penalty of imprisonment for such acts (sections 196(2)(a) and (b) and 291 of the Labour Act); the Committee considers that the terms “intimidating” or “inducing” are too general and do not sufficiently safeguard against interference in internal trade union affairs, since, for instance, a common activity of trade unions is to recruit members by offering advantages, including with regard to other trade unions;

–           the need to repeal provisions which prevent workers from running for trade union office if they were previously convicted for compelling or attempting to compel the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement or to agree to any demand by using intimidation, pressure, threats, etc. (sections 196(2)(d) and 180(1)(a) of the Labour Act);

–           the need to lower the minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in an establishment or group of establishments for initial and continued union registration as well as the possibility of deregistration if the membership falls below this number (sections 179(2) and 190(f) of the Labour Act); the need to repeal provisions which provide that no more than three trade unions shall be registered in any establishment or group of establishments (section 179(5) of the Labour Act) and that only one trade union of seamen shall be registered (section 185(3) of the Labour Act); finally, the need to repeal provisions prohibiting workers from joining more than one trade union and the consequent penalty of imprisonment in case of violation of this prohibition (sections 193 and 300 of the Labour Act);

–           the need to repeal provisions denying the right of unregistered unions to collect funds (section 192 of the Labour Act) upon penalty of imprisonment (section 299 of the Labour Act);

–           the need to lift several restrictions on the right to strike: requirement for three-quarters of the members of a workers’ organization to consent to a strike (sections 211(1) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); possibility of prohibiting strikes which last more than 30 days (sections 211(3) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); possibility of prohibiting strikes at any time if a strike is considered prejudicial to the national interest (sections 211(3) and 227(c) of the Labour Act) or involves a public utility service including the generation, production, manufacture, or supply of gas and oil to the public, as well as railways, airways, road and river transport, ports, and banking (sections 211(4) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); prohibition of strikes for a period of three years from the date of commencement of production in a new establishment, or an establishment owned by foreigners or established in collaboration with foreigners (sections 211(8) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); penalties of imprisonment for participation in – or instigation to take part in unlawful industrial action or go-slow (sections 196(2)(e) and 291, 294–296 of the Labour Act);

–           the need to repeal provisions which provide that no person refusing to take part in an illegal strike shall be subject to expulsion or any other disciplinary measure by the trade union, so as to leave this matter to be determined in accordance with trade union rules (section 229 of the Labour Act);

–           the need to amend new provisions which define as an unfair labour practice on the part of workers, an act of compelling or attempting to compel the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement or to accept or agree to any demand by using “intimidation”, “pressure”, “threat” so as to ensure that there is no interference with the right of trade unions to engage in activities like collective bargaining or strikes, and to repeal the consequent penalty of imprisonment for such acts (sections 196(d) and 291(2) of the Labour Act);

–           the need to amend provisions which impose a penalty of imprisonment for failure to appear before the conciliator in the framework of settlement of industrial disputes (section 301 of the Labour Act).

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to bring the Labour Act, 2006 into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee also notes that it is not clear from the provisions of the Labour Act whether Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977 (IRO) which previously granted the Registrar of Trade Unions overly broad authority to enter trade union offices, inspect documents, etc., without judicial review, has been repealed. It would appear from section 353(2)(a) that the rule remains in force, as the section in question provides that any rule under any provision of the repealed laws (including the IRO) shall have effect until altered, amended, rescinded or repealed, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Labour Act, 2006. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977 has been repealed by the entry into force of the Labour Act, 2006 and, if not, to indicate the measures taken or contemplated with a view to its repeal or amendment.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s reply to the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on 31 August 2005. The Committee recalls that the ICFTU’s comments referred to questions already raised and, in particular, concerned: (1) the police arrest of 350 women trade unionists in 2004, including the general secretary of the Jatio Sramik League (JSL) Women’s Committee, when they were taking part in activities to mark Women’s Day organized by the ICFTU-affiliated JSL (they were released on bail on 25 April and were due to face possible charges in court on 5 May 2005, although the nature of those charges was unclear); and (2) the Registrar’s refusal to register the Immaculate (Pvt.) Ltd. Sramik Union (a case which was the object of conclusions and recommendations by the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 2371, 340th Report, paragraphs 35-41)).

Concerning the police arrest of 350 women trade unionists, the Committee takes note of the Government’s reply that it has no comment on this incident and that the law will take its own course. The Committee wishes to stress once again that the arrest and detention, even for short periods, of trade union leaders and members engaged in legitimate trade union activities, without any charges being brought and without a warrant, constitute a grave violation of the principle of freedom of association. Moreover, the Committee emphasizes that freedom of assembly constitutes a fundamental aspect of trade union rights and the authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof, provided that the exercise of these rights does not cause a serious and imminent threat to public order (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 31 and 35). The Committee requests the Government to communicate detailed observations indicating the grounds on which 350 women trade unionists, including the general secretary of the JSL’s Women’s Committee, Shamsur Nahar Bhuiyan, were arrested in 2004, whether charges have been brought against them, and whether their case is being heard in front of a judicial authority. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of all judicial decisions taken in this matter.

In respect to the ICFTU’s comments relating to the Registrar’s refusal to register the Immaculate (Pvt.) Ltd. Sramik Union, the Committee takes note of the Government’s reply stating that the matter is currently in front of the court. The Committee notes that the procedure for the registration of this union started in 2003. While regretting the delay, the Committee urges the Government to report on the measures taken to ensure the prompt registration of the Immaculate (Pvt.) Ltd. Sramik Union. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to send a copy of the judicial decisions once adopted.

Lastly, the Committee takes note of the observations of the ICFTU dated 12 July 2006, which mainly concern legislative issues raised in the previous observations of the Committee and underline recent problems regarding the application of Convention No. 87 in the garment and textile industries. In particular, the ICFTU alleges the harassment of unions by the national intelligence authorities, police violence against protesting workers, arrests of trade unionists, as well as the difficulty in establishing trade unions in the ship recycling industry.

The Committee requests the Government to transmit its observations on all the comments made by the ICFTU as well as on the other issues raised by the Committee (see 2005 observation, 76th Session) for examination during the regular reporting cycle in 2007.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain information on the Committee’s previous comments concerning the denial of the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds, as well as the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union.

The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend provisions which:

–      deny the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds (section 11A(1) and (2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO)); and

–      deny workers who may be working in more than one occupation the right to join more than one trade union (section 11B of the IRO).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report, including the recently adopted EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act, No. 23 of 2004. It also notes the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2327 with respect to the conformity of the provisions of this Act to the Convention (see 337th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 293rd Session, June 2005, paragraphs 183-213). It notes finally, the comments sent by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication dated 31 August 2005. It requests the Government to communicate its observations on the comments in its next report.

1. Right to organize in export processing zones. The Committee notes that in its conclusions and recommendations reached in Case No. 2327, the Committee on Freedom of Association expressed its concern at the fact that, while taking certain steps to provide greater freedom of association to EPZ workers, the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act contains numerous and significant restrictions and delays in relation to the right to organize in EPZs. The Committee also notes the comments made in this respect by the ICFTU.

While observing that the adoption of this Act is aimed at providing greater protection for the association rights of EPZ workers, the Committee notes that numerous provisions of the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act are incompatible with the Convention. In particular, the Act: (i) contains a blanket denial of the right to organize in EPZs until 31 October 2006, thus postponing the effective recognition of this right until November 2006 (section 13(1)); (ii) provides that workers’ representation and welfare committees (WRWCs), which function instead of workers’ associations until 31 October 2006, shall be dissolved after that date, unless the employer considers that they should continue to function (section 11(2)); (iii) provides that workers’ associations will not be allowed in industrial units established after the commencement of the Act, until a period of three months has expired after the commencement of commercial production in the concerned unit (section 24); (iv) provides that there can be no more than one workers’ association per industrial unit (section 25(1)); (v) establishes excessive and complicated minimum membership and referendum requirements for the establishment of workers’ associations (sections 14, 15, 17 and 20); (vi) confers excessive powers of approval of the constitution drafting committee to the executive chairperson of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) (section 17(2)); (vii) prevents steps for the establishment of a workers’ association in the workplace for a period of one year after a first attempt failed to gather sufficient support in a referendum (section 16); (viii) permits the deregistration of a workers’ association at the request of 30 per cent of the workers even if they are not members of the association and prevents the establishment of another trade union for one year after the previous trade union was deregistered (section 35); (ix) provides for the cancellation of the registration of a workers’ association on grounds which do not appear to justify the severity of this sanction (such as contravention of any of the provisions of the association’s constitution) (section 36(1)(c), (e)-(h) and 42(1)(a)); (x) establishes a total prohibition of industrial action in EPZs until 31 October 2008 (section 88(1) and (2)); (xi) prevents workers’ associations from obtaining or receiving any fund from any outside source without the prior approval of the executive chairperson of the BEPZA (section 18(2)); (xii) provides for severe restrictions of strike action, once recognized (possibility to prohibit a strike if it continues for more than 15 days or even before this deadline, if the strike is considered as causing serious harm to productivity in the EPZ - section 54(3) and (4)); (xiii) requires an excessively high minimum number of trade unions to establish a higher level organization (more than 50 per cent of the workers’ associations in an EPZ - section 32(1)); (xiv) prohibits a federation from affiliating in any manner with federations in other EPZs and beyond EPZs (section 32(3)); and (xv) does not seem to afford guarantees against interference with the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom (e.g. the procedure of election shall be determined by the BEPZA, etc. - sections 5(6) and (7), 28(1), 29, 32(4)). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and to provide detailed information in its next report in this respect.

2. Other discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. The Committee recalls that for many years it has been referring to serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention. It also notes that, according to the comments made by the ICFTU, there has been no improvement in national law and practice. In this respect, the Committee notes that, in its latest report, the Government reiterates previously provided information and indicates that in light of the national context, there is no discrepancy between the national legislation and the Convention. The Committee nevertheless underscores the universal nature of the rights set forth in the Convention and the absence of any exclusions relating to the national context.

The Committee therefore reiterates the hope that it will be possible to bring the legislation into full conformity with the requirements of the Convention as soon as possible and asks the Government to provide information in its next report with regard to measures taken or contemplated in order to:

-  remedy the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right to association (section 3(a) of the IRO);

-  repeal provisions which restrict membership in trade unions and participation in trade union elections to those workers who are currently employed or were employed during the previous year in an establishment or group of establishments (section 7A(1)(b) of the IRO); moreover, repeal provisions which prevent workers from running for trade union office if they were previously dismissed for misconduct;

-  limit the overly broad authority of the Registrar of Trade Unions to enter trade union offices, inspect documents, etc., without judicial review (Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977);

-  lower the minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in an establishment or group of establishments for initial and continued union registration (sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the IRO);

-  lift several restrictions on the right to strike (requirement for three-quarters of the members of a workers’ organization to consent to a strike (section 28 of the IRO), possibility of prohibiting strikes which last more than 30 days (section 32(2) of the IRO) and also at any time if a strike is considered prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(4) of the IRO) or involves a public utility service (section 33(1) of the IRO) and penalties of imprisonment for participation in unlawful industrial action (sections 57 and 59 of the IRO)).

3. Adoption of the draft Labour Code. The Committee recalls that, in its previous report, the Government had indicated that the draft Labour Code was being re-examined by the Tripartite Labour Code Review Committee, while the issue of the right of association of workers in the Security Printing Press had also been placed before the Review Committee. The Committee notes that the Government’s latest report contains no information with regard to these issues. The Committee requests once again that the Government transmit in its next report a copy of the draft Labour Code and provide information as to the current stage in the process of adoption of the Labour Code. It also requests that the Government provide information on measures taken to guarantee the right of association to workers in the Security Printing Press.

In respect of the legislative issues raised above, the Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

4. Publications of public servants’ associations. With regard to its previous comments concerning the right of public servants’ associations to issue publications on trade union matters (Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1979), the Committee notes the Government’s comments in its report to the effect that public servants can publish any research paper, articles or scientific matters in the newspapers or journals without prior approval of the Government, subject to the condition that such papers, materials or articles do not go against the interests of the Government, or the State, the citizens or the country’s integrity. While being aware of the particular nature of the functions performed by public servants, the Committee also recalls that the right to express opinions through the press or otherwise is an essential aspect of trade union rights which calls for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas. The Committee emphasizes that workers, employers and their organizations should enjoy freedom of opinion and expression at their meetings, in their publications and in the course of their other activities (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 38). It requests the Government to ensure respect for this freedom in practice.

5. ICFTU comments on violations of the Convention. The Committee notes with concern that, according to the comments sent by the ICFTU on 20 April 2005, the police arrested 350 women trade unionists, including the General Secretary of the JSL’s Women’s Committee, Shamsur Nahar Bhuiyan, when they were taking part in activities to mark Women’s Day organized by the ICFTU-affiliated Jatio Sramik League (JSL). They were released on bail on 25 April and were due to face possible charges in court on 5 May 2005, although the nature of those charges were unclear. The Committee recalls that the arrest and detention, even for short periods, of trade union leaders and members engaged in their legitimate trade union activities, without any charges being brought and without a warrant, constitute a grave violation of the principle of freedom of association. Moreover, the Committee emphasizes that freedom of assembly constitutes a fundamental aspect of trade union rights and the authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof, provided that the exercise of these rights does not cause a serious and imminent threat to public order (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 31 and 35). The Committee requests the Government to communicate its observations on the comments made by the ICFTU and, in particular, to indicate the grounds on which 350 women trade unionists including the General Secretary of the JSL’s Women’s Committee, Shamsur Nahar Bhuiyan, were arrested, whether charges have been brought against them and any measures taken to drop such charges and to remedy any damages suffered.

6. Furthermore, the Committee takes note of the comments made by the ICFTU with regard to the Registrar’s refusal to register the Immaculate (Pvt.) Ltd. Sramik Union and the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in this respect (Case No. 2327, 337th Report, paragraphs 214-240). The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to ensure the prompt registration of the Immaculate (Pvt.) Ltd. Sramik Union.

The Committee addresses a request on certain other points directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

With regard to its previous comments concerning the denial of the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds, as well as the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union, although they may have more than one job (sections 11A(1) and (2)  and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO)), the Committee notes that the Government’s report confines itself to referring to previously provided information.

The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend the provisions which deny the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds, and to ensure that workers who may be working in more than one occupation may join more than one trade union so as to defend their interests in their respective occupations. Noting the ongoing revision of the Labour Code, the Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report.

The Committee notes that according to the Government, the draft Labour Code has been re-examined by the Tripartite Labour Code Review Committee and necessary prior action is being taken for its submission to Parliament, while the issue concerning the right of association of workers in the Security Printing Press has also been placed before the Review Committee. The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the draft Labour Code and trusts that the process of amending the Labour Code will be concluded soon and that the legislation will be brought into full conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

The Committee notes in this respect that the Government’s report is confined to reiterating previously provided information with regard to the Committee’s long-standing comments concerning serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention:

-  the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right of association (Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969);

-  restrictions on activities of public servants’ associations (Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979);

-  restrictions regarding membership in trade unions and election of union officers (section 7-A(1)(b) of the IRO and section 3 of Act No. 22 of 1990);

-  excessive external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions (Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977);

-  the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union (sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the IRO);

-  denial of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones (EPZ Authority Act, 1980);

-  restrictions on the right to strike (sections 28, 32(2) and (4), 33(1), 57 and 59 of the IRO).

The Committee once again urges the Government to take all necessary measures in the very near future so as to bring its national legislation into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any progress made in this regard.

In addition, a request regarding certain points is being addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. It recalls that its previous comments related to the following points.

The Committee had recalled that sections 11A(1) and (2) and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969, deny the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds as well as the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union at a time.

Concerning the first issue raised by section 11A(1) and (2) of the IRO, the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that such restrictions are aimed to prevent trade union multiplicity and ensure protection of public money. While noting the Government’s indication that some flexibility must be ensured in order to permit newly formed organizations to collect membership dues necessary to their registration by virtue of section 6, the Committee had considered that these provisions might seriously hinder the creation of new organizations. Therefore, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend its legislation in order to ensure that such flexibility will not be applied in an arbitrary fashion and so as to ensure full conformity with the Convention.

Concerning the second issue regarding section 11B of the IRO, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers, who may be working in more than one job, may organize to defend their interests in their respective occupations.

Noting the indication in the Government’s report that the draft Labour Code has been finalized and is under the active consideration of the Government, the Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on the abovementioned points. It requests the Government to keep it informed of all developments in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report.

It notes in particular the Government’s indication that the issue concerning the workers’ right of association in the Security Printing Press is under active consideration. The Committee notes that the draft Labour Code has been finalized and that the Government is in the process of placing it before Parliament. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the very near future to amend the legislation, in order to bring it into full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It requests the Government to transmit a copy of the draft Labour Code, so that it may examine its conformity with the Convention.

The Committee recalls in this respect its previous comments concerning serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention:

-  the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right of association under the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969;

-  restrictions on activities of public servants’ associations (Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979);

-  restrictions regarding membership in trade unions and election of union officers (section 7-A(1)(b) of the IRO and section 3 of Act No. 22 of 1990);

-  excessive external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions (Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977);

-  the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union (sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the IRO);

-  denial of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones (EPZ Authority Act, 1980);

-  restrictions on the right to strike (sections 28, 32(2) and (4), 33(1), 57 and 59 of the IRO).

The Committee hopes that the Government will continue the process of its labour laws and will amend the legislation referred to above, to ensure that it is brought into line with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any progress made in this regard.

In addition, a request regarding certain points is being addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

The Committee recalls that sections 11A(1) and (2) and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969, deny the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds as well as the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union at a time.

Concerning the first issue raised by section 11A(1) and (2) of the IRO, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that such restrictions are aimed to prevent trade union multiplicity and ensure protection of public money. While noting the Government’s indication that some flexibility must be ensured in order to permit newly formed organizations to collect membership dues necessary to their registration by virtue of section 6, the Committee considers that these provisions may seriously hinder the creation of new organizations. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend its legislation in order to ensure that such flexibility will not be applied in an arbitrary fashion and so as to ensure full conformity with the Convention.

Concerning the second issue regarding section 11B of the IRO, the Committee notes with regret that no progress has been made in that respect. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers, who may be working in more than one job, may organize to defend their interests in their respective occupations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

The Committee notes with regret that no additional information has been provided and that despite its numerous requests, the legislation remains unchanged.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the following serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the provisions of the Convention.

Managerial and administrative staff and other exclusions from
the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO)

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that persons carrying out managerial or administrative functions were excluded from the definition of the term "worker" and thus denied the right of association set out in section 3(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO). The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its latest report that managerial and administrative staff come within the definition of "employer" under section 2(viii) of the IRO and in that capacity they can form their association of employers under section 3(b) of the IRO.

The Committee recalls that restrictions on the right to organize for managerial staff may be permitted in order to prevent interference in trade union activities provided that the persons concerned have the right to form their own organizations to defend their interests (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 87). The Committee considers however that defining such workers as employers for the purpose of forming associations does not respond to their needs to defend their interests as employees. It therefore requests that the Government indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that managerial and administrative personnel may organize to defend their interests as employees and provide any available information on the number and size of associations formed by them.

The Committee also recalls that the workers of the Security Printing Press are not covered by the IRO and asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that these workers have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing to defend their interests.

Restrictions regarding membership in trade unions and election of union officers

For many years, the Committee had noted that section 7A(1)(b) of the IRO prevents persons who are not current or former employees of an establishment or group of establishments during the previous year from becoming members or officers of a trade union in an establishment or group of establishments. It notes with regret that the Government does not consider that this provision needs to be amended. The Committee wishes to emphasize that under Article 2 of the Convention, all workers shall have the right to organize and that this right should not be subjected to a required period of employment.

The Committee had further noted that section 3 of Act No. 22, 1990, provided that a worker dismissed for misconduct was not entitled to become an officer of a trade union. The Committee recalls that provisions of this type infringe the organization’s right to elect representatives in full freedom by preventing qualified persons from carrying out union duties or by depriving unions of the benefit of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons from among their own ranks. When national legislation imposes conditions of this kind on all trade union leaders, there is also a real risk of interference by the employer through the dismissal of trade union officers, which deprives them of their trade union office (see 1994 General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 117).

The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to repeal sections 3 and 7A(1)(b) so that workers may fully enjoy the right to organize and so that workers’ organizations may elect their officers freely in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention.

Restrictions on activities of public servants’ associations

In its previous comments, the Committee recalled that the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, restricted the right of public servants to issue publications. The Committee noted that the permitted subject matters of publications by public servants were extremely limited and did not include basic trade union issues, and as such did not allow for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas. The Committee once again recalls that the measures which impose prior restraint on the subject matter of trade union publications are contrary to the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes without interference from public authorities, and requests once again the Government to take measures to amend the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules in this respect.

Excessive external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions

The Committee recalls that under Rule 10 of the Industrial Relation Rules 1977, the Registrar of Trade Unions has the power to enter trade union offices, inspect documents, etc., and that this authority is not subject to judicial review.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its latest report to the effect that the Registrar may enter the office of a registered trade union in order to see whether the laws, rules or provisions of its constitution are being implemented or not. The Government states in particular that the Registrar receives complaints from union members alleging misappropriation of union funds and many irregularities that are allegedly committed by union officers. According to the Government, the Registrar must be able to enter a trade union office with reasonable cause to see whether the complaints filed are founded on facts. The Government adds that the Registrar never supervises the activities of a trade union and that trade unions are governed by their constitutions and the laws of the country.

The Committee recalls in this respect that the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration without interference by the public authorities includes in particular autonomy and financial independence and the protection of the assets and property of these organizations (see 1994 General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 124). There is no violation of the Convention if such verification is limited to exceptional cases, for example in order to investigate a complaint, or if there have been allegations of embezzlement. Both the substance and the procedure of such verifications should however always be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording every guarantee of impartiality and objectivity (ibid., paragraph 125).

The Committee therefore once again requests that the Government take the necessary measures to amend these rules so as to ensure that such broad authority of the Registrar may be subject to judicial review.

Registration requirement

The Committee recalls its previous comments regarding sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the IRO which impose a minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments for initial and continued union registration.

The Committee notes once again the Government’s indication that this registration requirement was mainly adopted with an objective of reducing the mushroom growth of trade unions and unwieldy multiplicity of unions.

The Committee considers however that such a requirement severely restricts the right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing. It suggests rather that the Government give consideration to granting certain preferential status for collective bargaining purposes to the most representative trade unions as a way of reducing union fragmentation and multiplicity.

It must once again request that the Government amend these provisions so as to ensure that workers may form and join organizations of their own choosing in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention.

Right to organize and to bargain collectively in export processing zones (EPZs)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government to the effect that the IRO and other labour laws will be implemented in EPZs from 2004 and as a result the workers in EPZs will be able to enjoy the legal rights to organize and bargain collectively.

Recalling once again that workers in EPZs should be guaranteed the same rights under the Convention as all other workers, the Committee requests that the Government transmit a copy of the draft legislation ensuring that EPZs will be covered by the IRO and other labour laws and keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.

Restrictions on the right to strike

The Committee notes with regret that no progress has been made in amending the various dispositions of the IRO concerning industrial action. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the following discrepancies between the legislation and Article 3 of the Convention: (i) the necessity for three-quarters of the members of a workers’ organization to consent to a strike (section 28); (ii) the possibility of prohibiting strikes lasting more than 30 days (section 32(2)) and of prohibiting a strike at any time if it is considered prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(4)) or involves a public utility service (section 33(1)); and (iii) the nature of penalties that may be imposed in respect of participation in unlawful industrial action (sections 57 and 59), including imprisonment.

As concerns the provisions setting forth sanctions for illegal strike action, including imprisonment, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that these provisions are aimed at ensuring that no illegal activities are conducted either by workers or by employers. The Committee emphasizes however that the application of disproportionate penal sanctions does not favour the development of harmonious and stable industrial relations; if measures of imprisonment are to be imposed at all they should be justified by the seriousness of the offences committed (see 1994 General Survey, paragraph 177).

The Committee once again requests that the Government indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend the legislation to ensure that the abovementioned sections concerning industrial action are brought into line with the provisions of the Convention, in particular as concerns the severity of the sanctions which may be imposed for illegal strike action.

The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the availability of the technical assistance of the ILO in respect of all the above matters.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee recalls that sections 11A(1) and (2) and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969, deny the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds as well as the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union at a time.

On the first point, the Committee pointed out that it would appear illegal for a union to collect funds prior to being registered and yet the requirement of a secure membership base for registration would be difficult to obtain without the union being able to collect dues and provide at least some level of service to members or potential members. The Government states in this regard that section 6 of the IRO provides enough scope for preliminary rights to establish a secure membership base prior to registration. Noting that section 6 addresses requirements for an application to register, the Committee requests the Government to specify how and to what extent it provides preliminary rights to unregistered unions.

On the issue of prohibiting workers from belonging to more than one union, the Committee has pointed out that this would hinder those holding more than one job from assuring the defence of their occupational interests. The Government replies that allowing workers in such a situation to join more than one union "is considered unrealistic, and as such the restriction is justified". The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will reconsider its position in order to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention, and requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report, the statement made by the Government representative to the 1998 Conference Committee and the discussion that followed.

The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for many years on the following serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the provisions of the Convention: the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right of association under the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969; restrictions on the right of association of public servants; restrictions concerning holding trade union office; excessive external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions; the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union; denial of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones (EPZs); restrictions on the right to strike.

The Committee notes with regret that, save for some developments in relation to EPZs discussed below, the Government practically reiterates the same arguments it has been making for many years and that, despite repeated observations to the same effect, serious discrepancies continue to exist between the national legislation and the Convention on the issues mentioned above. The Committee also notes that this total lack of progress, 28 years after the ratification of the Convention, was noted once again with great concern by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards during its discussion of these issues in 1999. The Committee further notes that during that discussion, the Government’s representative stated that all these points were examined by a tripartite Labour Code Review Committee (established in 1992, but which did not report), and that the Ministry of Labour had decided to set up a mechanism within the Ministry to "thoroughly examine the issue and make recommendations to correct any discordance between the Convention and the existing legislation". The Committee regrets to be unable, on this point as well, to note any progress whatsoever on these commitments of the Government.

As regards EPZs, whilst the arguments advanced are essentially the same as those of previous years (i.e. that union-free EPZs are an economic necessity to attract foreign investment, and that workers in these zones enjoy better facilities and service conditions than workers in other industrial sectors), the Committee notes that the Government indicates it is now taking necessary steps to form a labour welfare committee in EPZs. Recalling that workers in EPZs should have the same rights as other workers, the Committee firmly hopes that said labour welfare committee will be set up rapidly, and requests the Government to provide information in its next report on concrete measures taken and progress achieved in this respect.

In these circumstances, the Committee is bound to refer to its previous detailed observations and, recalling once again that the Government may avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO, urges it to amend its legislation accordingly in the very near future.

In addition, a request regarding certain points is being addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2001.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report.

The Committee recalls that sections 11A(1) and (2) and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO), deny the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds as well as the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union at a time. On the first point, the Committee pointed out that it would appear illegal for a union to collect funds prior to being registered and yet the requirement of a secure membership base for registration would be difficult to obtain without the union being able to collect dues and provide at least some level of service to members or potential members. The Government states in this regard that section 6 of the IRO provides enough scope for preliminary rights to establish a secure membership base prior to registration. Noting that section 6 addresses requirements for an application to register, the Committee requests the Government to specify how and to what extent it provides preliminary rights to unregistered unions.

On the issue of prohibiting workers from belonging to more than one union, the Committee has pointed out that this would hinder those holding more than one job from assuring the defence of their occupational interests. The Government replies that allowing workers in such a situation to join more than one union "is considered unrealistic, and as such the restriction is justified". The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will reconsider its position in order to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention, and requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report, and the statement made by the Government representative to the 1998 Conference Committee and the discussion that followed. The Committee also takes note of the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1862 (306th Report, 308th Report and 311th Report).

The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for a number of years concerning the following discrepancies between the national legislation and the provisions of the Convention:

-- the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right of association under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO);

-- restrictions on the right of association of public servants;

-- restrictions regarding holding trade union office;

-- excessive external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions;

-- the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union;

-- denial of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones;

-- restrictions on the right to strike.

In addition, the Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has brought to its attention, in the context of Case No. 1862, the inability to register a trade union on a nationwide basis or a union comprising workers from different establishments owned by different employers (see 306th Report, paragraph 103).

Managerial and administrative functions

In its previous observations, the Committee has commented on the exclusion from the definition of "worker" of persons carrying out managerial or administrative functions, thus denying them the right of association set out in section 3(a) of the IRO. In its last observation, the Committee noted the two main public sector associations referred to by the Government that had been established for these workers, and requested the Government to provide specific information on the number and size of other such associations, including those in the private sector. The Committee also requested the Government to specify which legislative provision grants the right of association to persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions in the private sector.

The Committee notes the Government's statement to the Conference Committee that while these workers cannot form trade unions under the IRO, they are able to form associations for the advancement of their rights and interests by virtue of article 38 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, which gives every citizen the right to form an association or union subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of morality and public order. In its latest report, the Government states that there is no legal bar for managerial or administrative personnel in the private sector, and points to the fact that various banking and insurance companies have officers' welfare associations to promote their service interests. The Government also lists a number of public sector associations, and states that in addition there are officers' welfare associations in the public sector, but that information as to their number and size is not currently available.

The Committee takes note of the Government's reference to article 38 of the Constitution, and requests the Government to provide further information as to the substance of the right to associate under the Constitution, including how the restrictions foreseen thereunder have been applied, and the recourse available to workers where a violation of this constitutional right is alleged. As article 38 of the Constitution only applies to "citizens", the Committee requests the Government to specify how non-citizens carrying out managerial or administrative functions are able to exercise the right of association. The Committee also looks forward to receiving information on the number and size of the associations, private and public sector, that have been established to further the occupational interests of those carrying out managerial and administrative functions.

Right of association of public servants

The Committee notes that the Government continues to assert that the legislation with respect to public servants is in conformity with the Convention. According to the statement of the Government representative to the Conference Committee, even though public servants are not covered by the IRO, they do have the right to form associations to advance their interests due to the constitutional right to associate referred to above. The Committee notes further that the Government states that matters concerning the exclusion of workers at the Security Printing Press from trade unions are to be placed before the Review Committee now reviewing the draft Labour Code. The Committee notes that the Government has been making this comment for a number of years, and expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken without further delay to ensure that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, are guaranteed the right to organize, and requests the Government to indicate any progress made in this regard.

The Committee has also raised concerns with respect to the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, restricting the right of public servants to issue publications. The Government replies in this context that public servants can publish any research based on culture, sports, development works and scientific matters in any newspaper or journal without prior approval; they can also publish any other matter with prior approval of the authority, pursuant to Rules 21 and 22 of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules. The Committee notes that an extremely limited range of matters may be the subject-matter of publications by public servants, which does not include basic trade union issues, and as such does not allow for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas.

The Committee again recalls that the measures which impose prior restraint on the subject-matter of trade union publications are contrary to the right of workers' organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes without interference from public authorities, and requests the Government to take measures to amend the above-noted rules accordingly.

Restrictions regarding holding trade union office

In its previous comments, the Committee has drawn attention to legislative provisions that excessively restrict the right of workers' organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. In particular, the Committee noted that section 7-A(1)(b) of the IRO prevents persons who are not current or former employees of an establishment or group of establishments from becoming members or officers of a trade union in such an establishment or group of establishments. In addition, section 3 of Act No. 22 of 1990 provides that a worker dismissed for misconduct shall not be entitled to become an officer of a trade union.

The Government representative to the Conference Committee stated that a worker dismissed for misconduct might seek revenge against the management, which could hinder normal union activities, industrial peace and productivity. In its report, the Government contends that the relevant provisions do not need to be amended. The Committee must again point out that such legislation entails the risk of interference by the employer through the dismissal of trade union members or leaders for exercising legitimate trade union activities, with the result (or even the intention) of depriving them in future of holding a position as a trade union officer. The Committee remains of the view that section 7-A(1)(b) of the IRO and section 3 of the 1990 Act are contrary to the right of workers' organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom, and urges the Government to take measures to have the provisions amended to bring them into conformity with the Convention. The Committee reminds the Government in the context of section 7-A(1)(b), that it does not object to an occupational requirement being imposed for some of the officers of an organization, as long as a reasonable proportion are exempted from such requirement.

Excessive external supervision

The Committee has previously commented that the powers of the Registrar of Trade Unions to enter trade union premises, inspect documents, etc., under Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977, is not subject to judicial review. The Government states in its report that the powers of the Registrar to inspect documents are exercised in order to ensure that the rules of the organization and the relevant provisions of the labour laws are observed, and to provide adequate safeguards with respect to trade union funds. The Government states that the law provides that the Registrar under section 10(2) of the IRO is to obtain prior permission from the Labour Court before taking any penal action against unions for contravention of any provisions of the laws. The Government concludes that "it is evident that the powers of supervision of the (Registrar) are clearly under judicial review". The Committee regrets that, while it has previously requested the Government to indicate the provisions that subject such powers of supervision to judicial review, the Government has failed to do so, referring only to section 10(2) of the IRO which provides that the Registrar is to submit an application to the Labour Court for permission to cancel the registration of a trade union. The Committee notes that the provision referred to by the Government in no way limits the Registrar's powers to enter premises and inspect documents and does not subject the substance and procedure of the Registrar's verifications to review by an impartial judicial authority. Noting again that there does not appear to be any limits on the Registrar's powers under Rule 10 to enter trade union premises and inspect documents, etc., and that this power is not subject to judicial review, the Committee asks the Government to amend this provision to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

Registration requirements

The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for several years on the lack of conformity with Article 2 of the Convention of provisions of the IRO imposing a requirement for initial and continued registration that a trade union have a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed (sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g)). Furthermore, the non-conformity of these provisions with the Convention was also raised by the Committee on Freedom of Association (see Case No. 1862, 306th Report, paragraph 102). The Committee also notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has raised other related concerns, namely that there is no legal provision enabling the registration of a trade union on a nationwide basis and that, pursuant to a court decision, registration of a union comprising workers from different establishments owned by different employers is prohibited (see 306th Report, paragraph 103). The Committee notes in this regard that the right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing implies the free determination of the structure and composition of trade unions.

The Government again asserts that sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) are in conformity with the Convention, and states that the requirement "has checked the multiplicity of trade unions which is obviously counterproductive for the workers". The Committee notes, however, that, according to the statement of the Government representative to the Conference Committee, the Government was considering taking measures in the near future concerning these provisions. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to ensure that the registration provisions are brought into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention.

Export processing zones

The Committee notes that the amendments proposed by the National Labour Law Commission (NLLC), referred to in a previous government report, to extend the provisions of the IRO and related laws to workers in export processing zones not only have not been adopted, but it appears from the Government's latest report that the issue has been resubmitted to a different body for consideration, namely the Review Committee on the Draft Labour Code. The Government also states in its report that the restrictions on the formation of trade unions in export processing zones "are temporary measures necessitated by the national situation, the level of development and the specific circumstances within Bangladesh". The Committee notes that such a fundamental right as the right to organize should not be denied to workers, even temporarily, and that this would constitute a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. In any event, the Committee is of the view that the Export Processing Zones Authority Act which provides for the exemption of the zones from the operation of the IRO, cannot be considered a "temporary measure", in view of the fact that it was adopted in 1980. Due to the seriousness of the violation of such an important right, the Committee urges the Government to take measures without further delay to ensure that workers in export processing zones are entitled to exercise all the rights under the Convention.

Restrictions on the right to strike

In its previous comments, the Committee has repeatedly raised concerns with respect to several provisions of the IRO limiting the right to strike and other forms of industrial action, in violation of the principles of freedom of association. The Committee has commented in particular on the following provisions: (i) the necessity for three-quarters of the members of a workers' organization to consent to a strike (section 28); (ii) the possibility of prohibiting strikes lasting more than 30 days (section 32(2)) and of prohibiting a strike at any time if it is considered prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(4)) or involves a public utility service (section 33(1)); and (iii) the nature of the penalties that may be imposed in respect of participation in unlawful industrial action (sections 57 to 59), including imprisonment. The Committee notes the statement made by the Government representative to the Conference Committee to the effect that the provisions noted above have been examined by the National Labour Law Commission whose report was still being studied by the Government. The Committee notes with interest the further statement of the Government representative that the Government would welcome the technical assistance of the International Labour Office concerning the implementation of the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government's statement that the powers of prohibiting a strike are exercised only in circumstances of national crisis, in conformity with the justification permitted by the Committee. The Committee notes that, while restrictions on strikes may at present only be imposed in circumstances of national crisis, the legislative provisions allow for restrictions to be imposed extending far beyond such circumstances; thus the provisions should be amended accordingly to bring them in line with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee recalls that, while the Committee is of the view that strikes can be restricted in the case of an acute national crisis, this must be limited to a genuine crisis situation, such as those arising from a serious conflict, insurrection or natural disaster, and any such restriction should be imposed only for a limited period and to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 152). The Committee, therefore, asks the Government to take the necessary measures to have the legislation amended to ensure that restrictions on the right to strike are confined accordingly.

The Committee notes with regret that no progress has been made by the Government in attempting to bring its legislation into fuller conformity with the requirements of the Convention, and that the Government continues to assert that the legislation does not violate the Convention, despite the repeated comments of the Committee to the contrary. In addition, according to information received by the ILO, it seems that trade union activities in the banking sector have been suspended since January 1998. Furthermore, several applications for registration by trade unions in the textile, metal and garment sector were rejected on unjustified grounds. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report concerning these serious allegations.

The Committee asks the Government to review and amend the legislation referred to above, taking into account the Committee's comments, and to inform it of any progress made in this regard. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government, having stated that it would welcome ILO technical assistance concerning the implementation of the Convention, will indeed accept such assistance in the near future.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes that the Government states in its report that it has noted the Committee's comments.

The Committee recalls that sections 11A(1) and (2) and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, deny the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds as well as the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union at a time. As concerns the latter, the Committee considers that while the limit of one union for one worker is understandable for workers with one job, it would however hinder workers who may have more than one job or more than one place of employment from assuring the defence of their occupational interests in the respective establishments. As regards the functioning of unregistered unions, the Committee points out once again that, under current law, it would appear to be illegal for a union to collect funds prior to being registered and yet the requirement of a secure membership base for registration would be difficult to obtain without the union being able to collect dues and provide at least some level of service to members or potential members. The Government should therefore take measures to ensure certain preliminary rights for unregistered trade unions, so that they may provide services enabling them to secure sufficient membership to obtain registration.

The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future to bring these provisions into full conformity with the Convention and recalls that the technical assistance of the ILO is available on these issues if the Government so desires it.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report, as well as the oral information supplied by the Government to the Conference Committee in June 1995 and the detailed discussion which took place thereafter. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the following points:

- the right of association of persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions;

- the right of association of public servants;

- restrictions on the range of persons who can hold office in trade unions;

- the extent of external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions;

- the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union,

- denial of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones; and

- restrictions on the right to strike.

Managerial and administrative functions

In its previous observation, the Committee had noted the Government's statement that, while persons carrying out managerial or administrative functions were excluded from the definition of "worker" in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO), and thus denied the right of association set out in section 3(a) of the IRO, such persons could form associations in order to further their professional interests. The Committee had requested the Government to indicate which legislative provisions granted the right of association to persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions, and to provide information on the number and size of such associations.

The Government states in its report that the Bangladesh Civil Service Administration Association has about 6,000 members and the Bangladesh Civil Service Economic Association about 600 members, while other such associations exist for difference cadres and non-cadres.

The Committee notes, however, that the Government still does not indicate which legislative provisions grant the right of association to persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions in the private sector and requests it to do so in its next report. The Committee notes moreover that apart from providing some information on the two main associations, the Government confines itself to stating that "other such associations exist for different cadres and non-cadres". The Committee would once again request the Government to provide specific information in its next report on the number and size of "other such associations".

Right of association of public servants

The Committee notes the Government's reiteration that its legislation is in conformity with the requirements of the Convention with respect to public servants. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the Government's statements that public servants, while not covered by the IRO, do have the right to form associations to advance their causes. The Committee had recalled, however, that such associations were subject to certain restrictions relating to their activities (in particular, as regards their rights to issue publications) by virtue of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, which were not in conformity with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that measures which impose prior restraint on the subject matter of trade union publications are contrary to the right of workers' organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes without interference from public authorities. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to bring these rules into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that the draft Labour Code would appear to continue to exclude workers at the Security Printing Press and public servants. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to ensure that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, are guaranteed the right to organize and requests the Government to indicate the progress made in this regard.

Restrictions on the range of persons who can hold office in trade unions

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that section 7-A(1)(b) of the IRO prevented persons who were not current or former employees of an establishment or group of establishments from becoming members or officers of a trade union in such an establishment or group of establishments. Furthermore, with reference to section 3 of Act. No. 22 of 1990 amending the IRO which provides that a worker dismissed for misconduct shall not be entitled to become an officer of a trade union, the Committee had considered that the provisions were contrary to the right of workers' organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom.

According to the statement made by the Government representative to the Conference Committee, the admission of workers dismissed for misconduct, either as union members or officers, would hinder normal union activities as well as industrial peace and productivity. In the Government's view, section 7-A(1)(b) of the IRO promoted rather than restricted the right of workers to choose their representatives.

The Committee points out to the Government, however, that such legislation entails the risk of interference by the employer through the dismissal of trade union members or leaders for exercising legitimate trade union activities with the result (or even the intention) of depriving them in the future from holding a position as a trade union officer. The Committee therefore once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will ensure that these provisions are amended to provide for greater flexibility in relation to membership and the holding of trade union office by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation (including workers who have been dismissed) or by exempting from occupational requirements a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization.

External supervision

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the powers of the Registrar of Trade Unions to enter trade union premises, inspect documents, etc. under Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977, were not subject to judicial review. The Committee had drawn the Government's attention in this regard to paragraph 125 of its General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining in which it had considered that there was no infringement of the right of organizations to organize their administration if the supervision by the public authorities of the organization's financial situation was limited to the obligation to submit periodic financial reports or if there were serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization were contrary to its rules or the law. In any event, the Committee had concluded that the substance and the procedure of such verifications should always be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording every guarantee of impartiality and objectivity.

The Government states in its report that any action of the Registrar can be challenged in a court of law.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the legislative provisions that limit the Registrar's powers of supervision to verifying that the law and the organization's rules are respected. It further requests the Government to indicate the provisions that subject such powers of supervision to judicial review.

The 30 per cent requirement

For several years now, the Committee has been asking the Government to review sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the IRO in order to bring them into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention. The first of these provisions is to the effect that no trade union may be registered unless it has a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed. The second gives the Registrar of Trade Unions the power to cancel the registration of a union where its membership has fallen below the 30 per cent threshold.

The Government states once again that this requirement helps check the multiplicity of trade unions in Bangladesh which would adversely affect workers' interests. In any event, in an establishment meeting this requirement, up to three unions could be registered. Moreover, there were provisions for determining a collective bargaining agent. It adds, however, that the recommendation of the National Labour Laws Commission (NLLC) in this regard is being considered by the Government.

The Committee, considering that these provisions restrict the right of all workers to organize, hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to ensure full conformity with Article 2 of the Convention and requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.

Denial of the right to organize in export processing zones

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that amendments proposing the extension of the provisions of the IRO and other related laws to workers in export processing zones (EPZs) had not yet been adopted although some workers in these zones seemed to have been allowed to form trade unions in anticipation of these amendments.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that the NLLC has submitted a report on this issue which is being studied by the Government. This report would eventually be submitted as a Bill to Parliament. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the NLLC report recommends the complete extension of the provisions of the IRO and other related laws to workers in EPZs. It requests the Government to provide detailed information in this respect in its next report.

Restrictions on the right to strike

In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled the concerns which it had been raising over a number of years with respect to several provisions in the IRO which limited strikes and other forms of industrial action in a manner which was not in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. In particular: (i) the necessity for three-quarters of the members of a workers' organization to consent to a strike (section 28); (ii) the possibility of prohibiting strikes which last more than 30 days (section 32(2)) and of prohibiting a strike at any time if it is considered prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(4)) or involve a "public utility service" (section 33(1)); and (iii) the nature of the penalties which may be imposed in respect of participation in unlawful industrial action (sections 57, 58 and 59), including the possibility of imprisonment.

The Committee nevertheless had indicated that it was mindful of the difficulties which might arise during acute national crises. It had recalled that it had always recognized that in such cases the right to strike could be circumscribed for a limited period of time. Furthermore, strike action could be restricted or prohibited in relation to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or for workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population or in the case of an acute national crisis. The Committee had considered, however, that the above-mentioned restrictions on strikes and other related actions in the IRO went beyond the above situations and categories of workers.

The Government states in its report that it has taken note of the Committee's comments in relation to this issue. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary steps in the near future to amend these provisions in order to bring them into full conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.

The Committee had noted previously that the tripartite National Labour Law Commission (NLLC) had undertaken a review of labour legislation and that a new Labour Code had been drafted. The Committee trusts that this draft Labour Code will fully take into account the Committee's comments on all of the points raised above. In this respect, it reminds the Government that the technical assistance of the International Labour Office is at its disposal if it so wishes.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its latest report.

1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that sections 11A(1) and (2) and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, deny the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds as well as the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union at a time. As concerns the latter, the Committee considers that while the limit of one union for one worker is understandable for workers with one job, it would however hinder workers who may have more than one job or more than one place of employment from assuring the defence of their occupational interests in the respective establishments. As concerns the functioning of unregistered unions, the Committee notes the indication in the Government's report that the unfettered right to form trade unions without the requirement of registration would lead to fragmentation in the leadership of workers and weaken their bargaining capacity, as well destabilize industrial peace. The Government adds that the workers agree with this approach and that it is not aware of any problem of unions realizing funds before registration. While noting the Government's statement, the Committee would point out that, under current law, it would appear to be illegal for a union to collect funds prior to being registered and yet the requirement of a secure membership base for registration would be difficult to obtain without the union being able to collect dues and provide at least some level of service to members or potential members. The Government may therefore wish to consider bringing its law into conformity with practice by taking measures to ensure certain preliminary rights for unregistered trade unions, so that they may provide services enabling them to secure sufficient membership to obtain registration.

2. The Committee would recall the comments it has been raising for a number of years concerning provisions in the Industrial Relations Ordinance restricting strikes and other forms of industrial action. In particular: (i) the fact that only a collective bargaining agent can give notice of a lawful strike seems to deprive workers in the unorganized sector as well as members of minority unions of the right to strike (sections 28, 43 and 46(1)(b)); and (ii) section 59 of the Ordinance which makes it an offence to take part in, instigate, etc. a "go-slow" when such restrictions, in the Committee's view, are justified only if the action is not peaceful. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future to bring these provisions into full conformity with the Convention and recalls that the assistance of the ILO is available on these issues if the Government so desires it.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its latest report. It recalls that its previous comments concerned the following points:

-- the right of association of persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions;

-- the right of association of public servants and the denial of the right to organize of certain groups of workers in a number of sectors of the economy, inter alia, rural electrification, civil aviation, jute research, bank security printing press;

-- restrictions on the range of persons who can hold office in trade unions;

-- the extent of external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions;

-- the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union;

-- denial of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones; and

-- restrictions on the right to strike.

The Committee notes with interest that the Government has been undertaking a review of its labour legislation by a tripartite National Labour Law Commission (NLLC) and that a new Labour Code has been drafted which would appear to extend coverage of the labour legislation, including the right to organize, to certain categories of workers previously excluded, such as the workers employed by the Civil Aviation Authority and those working at the Jute Research Institute. The Committee notes with regret, however, that a number of provisions in the previous legislation which were not in conformity with the Convention have remained unchanged in the draft Labour Code. It therefore expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention with respect to the following points.

Managerial and administrative functions

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the Government's statement that, while persons carrying out managerial or administrative functions are excluded from the definition of "worker" in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and thus denied the right of association set out in section 3(a) of the Ordinance, such persons can form associations in order to further their professional interests. The Committee recalled that forbidding such persons from joining unions representing other workers was not necessarily incompatible with the requirements of the Convention provided that they had the right to form their own organizations to defend their interests, and that the categories of managerial staff were not so broadly defined that the organizations of other workers in the establishment or branch of activity were weakened by being deprived of a substantial proportion of their actual or potential membership (see 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 87). The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate which legislative provisions ensure that persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions may establish and join their own associations to further their occupational interests, and to provide information on the number and size of such associations as well as their functions.

Right of association of public servants

The Committee notes the Government's indication that its legislation is in conformity with the requirements of the Convention with respect to public servants. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the Government's statements that public servants, while not covered by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, do have the right to form associations to advance their causes. The Committee had recalled, however, that such associations were subject to certain restrictions relating to their activities (in particular, as regards their rights to issue publications) by virtue of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, which were not in conformity with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that measures which impose prior restraint on the subject matter of trade union publications are contrary to the right of workers' organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes without interference from public authorities. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to bring these rules into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Furthermore, while noting that the draft Labour Code extends its coverage to workers in the Civil Aviation Authority and the Jute Research Institute, the draft would appear to continue to exclude workers at the Security Printing Press and public servants. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to ensure that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, are guaranteed the right to organize and requests the Government to indicate the progress made in this regard.

Restrictions on the range of persons who can hold office in trade unions

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 7-A(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance prevents persons who are not current or former employees of an establishment or group of establishments from becoming members or officers of a trade union in such an establishment or group of establishments. Furthermore, with reference to section 3 of Act. No. 22 of 1990 amending the Industrial Relations Ordinance which provides that a dismissed worker shall not be entitled to become an officer of a trade union, the Committee considered that the provisions are contrary to the right of workers' organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. It expresses the hope that, following the review of the labour laws, the Government will amend these provisions to provide for greater flexibility in relation to office-holding in trade unions by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation (including workers who have been dismissed) or by exempting from occupational requirements a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization.

External supervision

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the powers of the Registrar of Trade Unions to enter trade union premises, inspect documents, etc. under Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977, were not subject to judicial review. The Committee draws the Government's attention in this regard to paragraph 125 of its General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining in which it has considered that there is no infringement of the right of organizations to organize their administration if the supervision by the public authorities of the organization's financial situation is limited to the obligation to submit periodic financial reports or if there are serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law. In any event, the Committee has concluded that the substance and the procedure of such verifications should always be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording every guarantee of impartiality and objectivity. Noting that there appear to be no limits to the Registrar's power under Rule 10(2) to inspect the account books of a registered union and that this power is not subject to any judicial review, the Government is requested to amend this provision according to the above-mentioned principles.

The 30 per cent requirement

For several years now, the Committee has been asking the Government to review sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which impose, respectively, a membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments concerned for a union to be registered, and permit dissolution if membership falls below that level, in order to bring them into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention. The Government has once again indicated that it considers this requirement reasonable and adds that it helps check multiplicity of trade unions which adversely affects workers' interests. It adds, however, that the recommendation of the NLLC in this respect is being studied. The Committee, considering that these provisions extensively restrict the right of all workers to organize, hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to ensure full conformity with Article 2 of the Convention and requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.

Denial of the right to organize in export processing zones

The Committee notes with regret from the Government's report that the amendments proposing the extension of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and other related laws to workers in export processing zones (EPZs) have not yet been adopted. While noting that some workers in these zones seem to have been allowed to form trade unions in anticipation of these amendments, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the number of workers' organizations which have already been set up in the EPZs, the size of their memberships and their functions, as well as to indicate the progress made in extending the coverage of the Industrial Relations Ordinance to these workers.

Restrictions on the right to strike

The Committee notes the statement in the Government's report that the economic condition of the country does not permit workers to go on frequent strike as this would pose a threat to maintaining their livelihood and cripple the economy. Nevertheless, the Committee must recall the concerns which it has been raising over a number of years with respect to several provisions in the Industrial Relations Ordinance which limit strikes and other forms of industrial action in a manner which is not in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. In particular: (i) the necessity for three-quarters of the members of a workers' organization to consent to a strike (section 28); (ii) the possibility of prohibiting strikes which last more than 30 days (section 32(2)) and of prohibiting a strike at any time if it is considered prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(4)) or involve a "public utility service" (section 33(1)); and (iii) the nature of the penalties which may be imposed in respect of participation in unlawful industrial action (sections 57, 58 and 59), including the possibility of imprisonment.

Mindful of the difficulties which might arise during acute national crises, the Committee recalls that it has always recognized that in such cases the right to strike may be circumscribed for a limited period of time. Furthermore, strike action may be restricted or prohibited in relation to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or for workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population or in the case of an acute national crisis. The Committee considers, however, that the above-mentioned restrictions on strikes and other related actions in the Industrial Relations Ordinance go beyond the above situations and categories of workers. It expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary steps in the near future to amend these provisions in order to bring them into full conformity with the Convention.

The Committee would also remind the Government that the assistance of the International Labour Office is available on any of these points if so desired.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes that the Government has not supplied any information in response to its 1991 direct request. It therefore repeats its previous direct request which read as follows:

1. The Committee has asked the Government to provide certain information in relation to sections 11A(1) and (2) and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which deny the rights to function and to collect funds of unregistered unions and the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union at a time. The Government indicates that both provisions are still in force, that they had been introduced in the greater interest of workers, and that in the Government's opinion they did not restrict the workers' right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

The Committee notes the Government's reply, but must reiterate that these provisions do not appear to be in conformity with the guarantees provided by Article 2 of the Convention. Accordingly, it asks the Government to introduce the necessary amendments to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention. In doing so the Committee would point out that a strict interpretation of section 11A would make it virtually impossible to establish any new trade union. This is because a union in the process of being established could not lawfully collect funds or function as a trade union until it had been registered, but it could not secure registration until it had established a secure membership base which in turn would be virtually impossible without being able to collect subscriptions and to provide at least some level of service to members or potential members.

2. The Committee had expressed a number of concerns about various aspects of those provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which deal with strikes and other forms of industrial action. In particular: (i) the fact that only a collective bargaining agent can give notice of a lawful strike seems to deprive workers in the unorganized sector, and members of minority unions, of the right to strike (sections 28, 43 and 46(1)(b); (ii) the fact that lawful strike notice can be served only where at least 75 per cent of the members of the relevant bargaining agent have voted in favour (section 28) constitutes an unreasonable restriction upon the right to strike; (iii) the provisions which enable the Government to prohibit strikes which have lasted more than 30 days (section 32(2)), which entail serious hardship to the community or are prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(2)), or involve a "public utility service" (section 33(1)), appear to place restrictions on the right to strike which go beyond those which have been regarded as acceptable by the Committee; (iv) section 59 of the Ordinance which makes it an offence to take part in, instigate, etc. a "go-slow" in the Committee's view, such restrictions are justified only if the action is not peaceful; and (v) the nature of the penalties which may be imposed in respect of participation, etc. in unlawful industrial action (sections 57, 58 and 59) do not appear to be consistent with the principles on freedom of association.

In response to specific queries directed to it by the Committee, the Government indicates that since 1972 only five strikes have been prohibited by virtue of section 32(2), and four by virtue of section 33(1). The Government indicates that no workers or individuals have been prosecuted under any of sections 57, 58 and 59 since 1972. The 75 per cent voting requirement is necessary to ensure that workers' demands possess the necessary degree of credibility, whilst the strike prohibitions in sections 32 and 33 are needed in order to sustain the supply of essential goods and services to the community.

The Committee has always recognized that the right to strike may be circumscribed for a limited period in time of acute national crisis. It may also be restricted in relation to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, and in relation to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Such restrictions should be compensated by the existence of adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures. Statutory restrictions on the methods used, or the conditions to be satisfied in advance of lawful strike action, should not be of such a character as to result in practice in a total prohibition or an excessive limitation of the exercise of the right to strike. Penalties for engaging in strikes and other forms of industrial action should be imposed only where there are violations of strike prohibitions which are themselves in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Furthermore, penalties should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed and if they are imposed at all, measures of imprisonment in any case should be subject to the regular judicial control.

The provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance outlined above do not appear to be compatible with these principles. Accordingly, the Committee calls upon the Government to introduce legislative amendments to bring its law and practice into full conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its reports as well as the observations of the Bangladesh Workers' Federation (BWF) and of the Bangladesh Employers' Association (BEA). It recalls that its previous comments concerned the following points:

- the right of association of persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions;

- the right of association of public servants;

- restrictions on the range of persons who can hold office in trade unions;

- the extent of external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions;

- the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union;

- denial of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones; and

- denial of the right to organize of certain groups of workers in a number of sectors of the economy, inter alia, rural electrification, civil aviation, jute research, bank security printing press).

Managerial and administrative functions

The Committee has noted on previous occasions that section 2(b)(viii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, excludes from the definitions of "worker" and "workmen" persons who exercise functions of a managerial or administrative nature, which has the consequence that such persons are denied the right of association set out in section 3(a) of the Ordinance and hence not entitled to the protection of the Ordinance.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that, while persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions do not join trade unions of workers, they can form their own associations for the advancement of their rights and interests. The Government further states that, since the number of persons engaged in managerial and administrative functions is limited to around 2 per cent of the total employed, they do not form their own associations in each establishment; instead they establish these associations at the national level. Some of these persons join associations of different professional groups, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Institution of Engineers, in order to further their professional interests.

The Committee has recognized in paragraph 66 of its 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining that forbidding such persons to join unions representing other workers is not necessarily incompatible with the requirements of the Convention provided that they have the right to form their own organizations to defend their interests, and that the categories of managerial staff are not so broadly defined that the organizations of other workers in the establishment or branch of activity are weakened by being deprived of a substantial proportion of their present or potential membership. The Committee requests the Government to indicate which legislative provisions entitle persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions to join associations to further their occupational interests. The Committee notes, moreover, that the Government does not mention the number and size of organizations which have been formed, in practice, in order to represent the interests of such workers. It would therefore request the Government once again to provide information in its next report on the number and size of such associations.

Right of association of public servants

The Government indicates that although public servants are excluded from the coverage of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, they are allowed to form their own associations to advance their causes. Moreover, these associations have their own executive committees, offices and funds, and meetings are held with a view to mitigating grievances of members. These associations also formulate charters of demands for submission to the Government and for negotiation on them.

While noting the Government's statement, the Committee observes that such associations are subject to certain interference by public authorities in relation to their activities, through the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979. It would point out once again that these restrictions are not in conformity with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, and requests the Government to take the necessary steps to bring its law and practice into full conformity with these provisions by removing the excessive restrictions.

Restrictions on the range of persons who can hold office in trade unions

The BWF states that section 7A(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, which disqualifies a worker from being a member or officer of a trade union formed in any establishment if he is not or was never employed or engaged in that establishment, restricts workers' freedom to elect their representatives. The Government indicates in its report that though formulated as a negative sentence, this provision facilitates the joining of workers in unions of a given establishment or a group of establishments.

The Committee would nevertheless point out that this provision prevents persons who are not current or former employees in the trade or industry concerned from becoming officers of a trade union, which is contrary to the right of workers' organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. It therefore requests the Government once again to introduce amendments to provide for greater flexibility in relation to office-holding in trade unions by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation and by exempting from occupational requirements a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization.

The Government points out that the provision whereby a worker who is dismissed for misconduct shall not be entitled to be a member or officer of a trade union (section 3 of Act No. 22 of 1990) is desirable, since the induction of such dismissed workers into a trade union, either as members or as office-bearers, may hinder normal trade union activities as well as industrial peace and productivity. The BEA reiterates its earlier views that workers who have been dismissed for misconduct should not be able to hold trade union office, since such persons "being obsessed with retaliation would defeat the very purpose and spirit of collective bargaining". The Committee would first of all once again request the Government to supply a copy of Act No. 22 of 1990. It would further point out that, whilst it may be permissible to exclude from office-holding persons who have been convicted of criminal offences which call into question the integrity of the person concerned and which are of such a character as to be prejudicial to the exercise of trade union office (1994 General Survey, op. cit., para. 120), it considers that individuals should not be excluded from holding office simply because they have been dismissed from their employment for misconduct, and asks the Government to take steps to amend this provision accordingly.

External supervision

The Committee notes that the powers of the Registrar of Trade Unions to enter trade union premises, inspect documents, etc. under rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules 1977 are not subject to judicial review. The Committee would remind the Government that legislation which empowers the administrative authorities to investigate the internal affairs of a union at their entire discretion does not conform to the principles of the Convention (1994 General Survey, op. cit., paras. 125, 126 and 135). It therefore requests the Government to take steps to amend this provision so that the controls conducted by the Registrar are subject to review by the competent judicial authority.

The 30 per cent requirement

For some years the Committee has been asking the Government to review sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance in order to bring them into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention. The first of these provisions is to the effect that no trade union may be registered unless it has a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed. The second gives the Registrar of Trade Unions the power to cancel the registration of a union where its membership has fallen below the 30 per cent threshold.

In its report, the Government indicates that, while this minimum membership requirement has prevented the growth of a multiplicity of trade unions, it has not hindered the establishment of organizations in different workplaces. The Government has nevertheless noted the Committee's previous observations in this respect. Therefore, it has referred the relevant labour laws to a Labour Law Commission set up in 1992 for review and reformulation in the light of national conditions and international labour standards.

The Committee welcomes these developments and trusts that the above-mentioned review will bring law and practice relating to the registration of trade unions into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention under which workers have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this respect in the work of the Labour Law Commission.

Denial of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest from the Government's report that it has already decided to review the provisions of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act, 1980, which denies workers in export processing zones the right to form and join trade unions. The Government indicates that amendment proposals covering the extension of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and other related laws have been submitted to the competent authority. Moreover, some of the establishments in these zones have already allowed their workers to form trade unions in anticipation of the amendment of the existing law.

The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the relevant amendments to the 1980 Act and to indicate the number of organizations that have already been set up in export processing zones as well as the size of their respective membership.

Denial of the right to organize of certain groups of workers

The Government states that workers employed by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Jute Research Institute enjoy the right to organize. The trade union of workers in the Security Printing Press is also registered, although the authorities have initiated an amendment of the relevant law to prevent undue trade union activity in the press. In any case, the Government indicates that all legislative provisions relating to the right to organize and the exclusion of establishments from the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance are being reviewed by the Labour Law Commission.

The Committee takes note of this information and recalls that the only groups of workers who may be denied the guarantees embodied in the Convention are those mentioned in Article 9 thereof - namely members of the armed forces and the police. Therefore, it trusts that the above-mentioned legislative amendments will be in conformity with the requirements of the Convention and requests the Government to provide details of these amendments once they have been elaborated by the Labour Law Commission.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

1. The Committee notes the information supplied in response to its 1989 direct request.

2. The Committee had asked the Government to provide certain information in relation to sections 11A(1) and (2) and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which deny the rights to function and to collect funds of unregistered unions and the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union at a time. The Government indicates that both provisions are still in force, that they had been introduced in the greater interest of workers, and that in the Government's opinion they did not restrict the workers' right to establish and join organisations of their own choosing.

The Committee notes the Government's reply, but must reiterate that these provisions do not appear to be in conformity with the guarantees provided by Article 2 of the Convention. Accordingly, it asks the Government to introduce the necessary amendments to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention. In doing so the Committee would point out that a strict interpretation of section 11A would make it virtually impossible to establish any new trade union. This is because a union in the process of being established could not lawfully collect funds or function as a trade union until it had been registered, but it could not secure registration until it had established a secure membership base which in turn would be virtually impossible without being able to collect subscriptions and to provide at least some level of service to members or potential members.

3. The Committee had expressed a number of concerns about various aspects of those provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which deal with strikes and other forms of industrial action. In particular: (i) the fact that only a collective bargaining agent can give notice of a lawful strike seems to deprive workers in the unorganised sector, and members of minority unions, of the right to strike (sections 28, 43 and 46(1)(b)); (ii) the fact that lawful strike notice can be served only where at least 75 per cent of the members of the relevant bargaining agent have voted in favour (section 28) constitutes an unreasonable restriction upon the right to strike; (iii) the provisions which enable the Government to prohibit strikes which have lasted for more than 30 days (section 32(2)), which entail serious hardship to the community or are prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(2)), or involve a "public utility service" (section 33(1)), appear to place restrictions on the right to strike which go beyond those which have been regarded as acceptable by the Committee (1983 General Survey, paragraphs 208-215); (iv) section 59 of the Ordinance which makes it an offence to take part in, instigate, etc. a "go-slow" does not appear to be compatible with the principles of the Convention (1983 General Survey, paragraph 218); and (v) the nature of the penalties which may be imposed in respect of participation, etc. in unlawful industrial action (sections 57, 58 and 59) do not appear to be consistent with the principles set out in paragraph 223 of the 1983 General Survey.

In response to specific queries directed to it by the Committee, the Government indicates that since 1972 only five strikes have been prohibited by virtue of section 32(2), and four by virtue of section 33(1). The Government indicates that no workers or individuals have been prosecuted under any of sections 57, 58 and 59 since 1972. The 75 per cent voting requirement is necessary to ensure that workers' demands possess the necessary degree of credibility, whilst the strike prohibitions in sections 32 and 33 are needed in order to sustain the supply of essential goods and services to the community.

The Committee has always recognised that the right to strike may be circumscribed for a limited period in times of acute national crisis. It may also be restricted in relation to public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority, and in relation to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Such restrictions should be compensated by the existence of adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures. Statutory restrictions on the methods used, or the conditions to be satisfied in advance of lawful strike action, should not be of such a character as to result in practice in a total prohibition or an excessive limitation of the exercise of the right to strike. Penalties for engaging in strikes and other forms of industrial action should be imposed only where there are violations of strike prohibitions which are themselves in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Furthermore, the penalties to be imposed should be proportionate to the nature of the offence committed and should not include imprisonment for the simple fact of participating in a peaceful strike.

The provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance outlined above do not appear to be compatible with these principles. Accordingly, the Committee calls upon the Government to introduce legislative amendments to bring its law and practice into full conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes the Government's reports. It also notes the observations of the Bangladesh Workers' Federation (BWF) and of the Bangladesh Employers' Association (BEA).

For a number of years the Committee has raised the following points:

- the right of association of persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions;

- the right of association of public servants;

- restrictions on the range of persons who can hold office in trade unions;

- the extent of external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions; and

- the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union.

Managerial and administrative functions

The Committee has pointed out that section 2(b)(viii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 excludes from the definitions of "worker" and "workmen" persons who are employed in a managerial or administrative capacity or who exercise functions of a managerial or administrative nature. This has the consequence that such persons are denied the right of association which is set out in section 3(a) of the Ordinance. However, both the Government and the BEA have stated that such workers are covered by the definition of "employer" in section 2(b)(viii), whose right of association is protected by section 3(b) of the Ordinance. The Committee has pointed out, as it does in paragraph 131 of its 1983 General Survey, that forbidding such persons to join unions representing other workers may not be incompatible with the requirements of the Convention so long as they have the right to form and join their own organisations to defend their interests, and that the categories of managerial staff are not so "broadly defined that the organisations of other workers in the establishment or branch of activity are weakened by being deprived of a substantial proportion of their present or potential membership".

As in its previous observations, the BEA states that "if the supervisors and the supervised are allowed to jointly form trade unions then there will be no supervision and administration".

The Committee has repeatedly asked the Government and/or the BEA to provide details as to the numbers of workers affected by these exclusions, and as to the number and size of organisations which have been formed in order to represent the interests of such workers. In its report, the Government indicates that some 3 per cent of workers in the public sector are employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but that no figures can be supplied in relation to the private sector. The Government has not provided any information in relation to the number or size of trade unions which have been established in order to represent the interests of managerial or administrative employees. In the continuing absence of any indication to the contrary, the Committee can only conclude that law and practice in Bangladesh in this regard are not in conformity with the guarantees provided by Article 2 of the Convention.

Right of association of public servants

The Committee has noted on several occasions that with certain limited exceptions, public servants are excluded from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. It is true that they are permitted to form and join associations for purposes of ventilating their grievances and promoting their interests - however, such associations are subject to certain constraints in relation to their activities which do not apply to other trade unions.

The Committee has repeatedly pointed out that these restrictions are not in conformity with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, and has called upon the Government to introduce the changes necessary to bring the law and practice into full conformity with these provisions. In its report, the Government indicates that it has noted the observations of the Committee on this point, but it does not give any indication that it proposes to introduce the changes requested by the Committee. The Committee notes with regret this continued failure to give effect to the requirements of the Convention.

Restrictions upon the right to join or to hold office in trade unions

For a number of years the Committee has been asking the Government to amend section 7A(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance by permitting a "reasonable proportion" of the officers of a trade union to be persons who are not current or former employees in the trade or industry concerned. The Government has consistently stated that, as amended in 1985, this provision is in conformity with the Convention. The Committee remains of the view that it is not, and again asks the Government to introduce amendments to provide for greater flexibility in relation to office-holding in trade unions.

The Government indicates that section 3 of Act No. 22 of 1990 provides that a worker who is dismissed for misconduct shall not be entitled to be a member or officer of a trade union. The Government considers that this provision is desirable in the interests of healthy industrial relations. The BEA also considers that statutory provision providing for the association of dismissed workers "obsessed with retaliation will defeat the very purpose of collective bargaining". The Government has not supplied a copy of Act No. 22 of 1990. The Committee asks it to do so at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime the Committee would point out that whilst it has accepted that it may be permissible to exclude from office-holding persons who have been convicted of criminal offences which call into question the integrity of the person concerned and which are of such a character as to be prejudicial to the exercise of trade union office (1983 General Survey, paragraph 164), it considers that individuals should not be excluded from holding office simply because they have been dismissed from their employment for misconduct. A fortiori, the Committee considers that individuals should not be excluded from union membership simply because they have been dismissed for misconduct.

External supervision

The Committee had asked the Government to indicate whether the powers of the Registrar of Trade Unions to enter trade union premises, inspect documents, etc. under rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules 1977 is subject to judicial review. The Government has indicated that the powers of the Registrar under section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance are subject to judicial review by virtue of section 10(3), but it has not provided any reply in relation to the 1977 rules. It is asked to provide such a response in its next report.

The 30 per cent requirement

For some years the Committee has been asking the Government to review sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance in order to bring them into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention. The first of these provisions is to the effect that no trade union may be registered unless it has a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed. The second gives the Registrar of Trade Unions the power to cancel the registration of a union where its membership has fallen below the 30 per cent threshold.

In its report, the Government indicates that these provisions have achieved their purpose of preventing the growth of a multiplicity of trade unions, and that section 7(2) is used by the unions themselves to keep the number of unions in each establishment or group of establishments to a maximum of three. The Government further indicates that section 7(2) has been amended so as to facilitate the grouping of establishments controlled by the same employer. It has not provided the text, or the date, of this amendment.

The Committee has consistently taken the view that where the law prescribes a minimum number of members for purposes of establishing a trade union that number "ought to be limited to a reasonable figure so that the establishment of organisations is not hindered" (1983 General Survey, paragraph 123). It has also taken the view that a 30 per cent figure is excessive for these purposes (ibid., paragraph 124). Accordingly, the Committee must again call upon the Government to introduce amendments to bring its law and practice relating to the registration of trade unions into conformity with what the Committee has always regarded as one of the most important principles enshrined in the Convention (ibid., paragraph 120). It also asks the Government to supply the text of the recent amendments to section 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.

Denial of the right to organise of workers in export processing zones

In its comments, the BWF states that section 11A of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act, 1980, denies workers in export processing zones the right to form and join trade unions. The Government confirms that this provision does indeed enable it to exempt a zone from the operation of all or part of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. It goes on to explain that employers in such zones are found to be paying wages and other benefits which are above the national average, and that accordingly "the Government does not consider it expedient to allow formation of trade unions for the time being". The Committee considers that this provision is not compatible with the guarantees provided by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and, in particular, with the right of all workers without distinction whatsoever to establish and join organisations of their own choosing, and it urges the Government to amend section 11A of the 1980 Act so as to bring it into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Denial of the right to organise of certain groups of workers

The BWF states that the Government has introduced legislation to prevent the establishment of trade unions by employees of the Rural Electrification Board, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Jute Research Institute. It also alleges that the Government had "decided to outlaw" the Bangladesh Bank Security Printing Press Workers and Employees Union.

The Government has not commented on the allegations relating to the Rural Electrification Board, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Jute Research Institute. It does confirm, however, that the Industrial Relations Ordinance was amended in 1990 so as to exclude from its operation any person employed by the Security Printing Press. This press is owned by the Government, and is responsible for printing bank notes and minting currency. In view of its importance to national security it was considered necessary to place the press outside the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Once this had been done it followed that the registration of the Bangladesh Bank Security Printing Press Workers and Employees Union had to be cancelled.

The Committee must point out that the only groups of workers who may be denied the guarantees embodied in the Convention are those mentioned in Article 9 thereof - namely members of the armed forces and the police. The employees of the Security Printing Press do not fall into either of these categories. Accordingly, the Committee must call upon the Government to restore to workers employed by the Security Printing Press the rights guaranteed by the Convention. It also asks the Government to indicate whether it is true that workers employed by the Rural Electrification Board, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Jute Research Institute have been denied the right to form or join the unions of their choice.

The Committee asks the Government to reconsider the situation as a whole in the light of the above comments and to report any measures that are taken in order to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 78th Session.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee takes note of the report of the Government. It also takes note of the observations made by the Bangladesh Employers' Association.

The Committee recalls that for a number of years it has expressed concerns relating to:

- the right of association of persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions;

- the right of association of public servants;

- restrictions upon the range of persons who can hold office in trade unions;

- the extent of external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions; and

- the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union.

Managerial and administrative functions

The Comittee has pointed out that section 2(b)(viii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, as amended, excludes from the definition of "worker" and "workmen" persons who are employed in a managerial or administrative capacity or who exercise functions of a managerial or administrative nature. This has the consequence that such persons are denied the right of association which is set out in section 3(a) of the Ordinance. In the past the Committee has noted statements by the Government and by the Bangladesh Employers' Association to the effect that such staff are covered by the definition of "employer" in section 2(b)(viii), whose right of association is provided for by section 3(b) of the same Ordinance. The Committee has pointed out, as it does in paragraph 131 of its General Survey of 1983, that forbidding such persons to join trade unions representing other workers is not necessarily incompatible with freedom of association, on two conditions: first, that they have the right to form their own organisations to defend their interests and, second, that the categories of managerial staff and employees in positions of confidence are not so broadly defined that the organisations of other workers in the establishment or branch of activity are weakened by being deprived of a substantial proportion of their present or potential membership. According to the Bangladesh Employers' Association, there would be no management or administration if these groups of staff were authorised to set up trade unions with the workers under their orders. The Committee has noted that these groups of persons are entitled to set up their own associations for the defence of their interests. Bearing these considerations in mind, the Committee has repeatedly asked the Government and/or the Bangladesh Employers' Association to provide details as to the number or percentage of workers affected by these provisions. In its most recent observation, the Employers' Association states that the number is "small". The Government states that the required information is not readily available.

The Committee again asks the Government to try to provide some estimate of the percentage of the workforce who are regarded as being employed in a managerial or administrative capacity. It also asks the Government to provide information as to the number, and size of membership, of organisations which have been formed in order to represent the interests of such staff.

Right of association of public servants

The Committee recalls that public servants, apart from those employed on the railways, and in postal, telegraph and telephone services, are excluded from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. They are permitted to form and to join associations for purposes of ventilating their grievances and promoting their interests. However, such associations are subject to a number of constraints which do not apply to trade unions which operate within the framework of the 1969 Ordinance. For example, section 29(c) and (e) of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, forbids associations from engaging in any form of political activity, whilst section 29(d) denies them the right to issue or maintain any publications other than in accordance with Government orders, or to publish any representation on behalf of their members except with the express sanction of the Government.

The Committee has repeatedly pointed out that such restrictions are not in conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It again urges the Government to reconsider the situation, in order to give full effect to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention with respect to public servants.

Restrictions upon the right to join or to hold office in trade unions

As a result of amendments in 1970 and in 1980, section 7A(1)(a)(ii) and (b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, limited the right to be a member or officer of a trade union to persons actually employed in the establishment or group of establishments where the union was formed. The Committee has consistently taken the view that a provision of this kind restricts the right of workers to establish and to join organisations of their own choosing (Article 2 of the Convention), to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organise their administration and activities (Article 3) (see the Committee's General Survey of 1983, paragraphs 157 and 158). Section 7A was amended in 1985 so as to remove the prohibition formerly contained in section 7A(1)(b). The Committee has observed that this change reflected the fact that this provision had ceased to be necessary by reason of the effluxion of time. The stipulation formerly embodied in section 7A(1)(a)(ii) is now found in a new section 7A(1)(b), but with the important qualification that former employees at an establishment or group of establishments can now be members or officers of a trade union formed at that establishment. Both the Government and the Bangladesh Employers' Association are of the opinion that section 7A(1) is now consistent with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee notes the amendment, and the views of the Government and of the Employers' Association, with interest. However, it requests the Government to adopt measures with a view to making these provisions more flexible by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organisation so as to allow the candidature of persons who are outside the profession. (General Survey, paragraph 158.)

External supervision

The Committee has noted on a number of occasions that section 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977, invests the Registrar with very wide-ranging powers as regards access to, and inspection of, the accounting and other records of trade unions. In a 1987 observation, the Bangladesh Free Trade Union Congress also drew attention to the broad scope of these powers, and to the fact that officials of the Federation (and other unions) are summoned to the office of the Authorised Officer (Registrar) immediately on receipt of their annual returns.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that in practice the supervision exercised by the Registrar is limited to the inspection of account books and calling for any necessary clarification. The Government further states that no investigatory measure has so far been taken by the Registrar against any trade union or federation, and that the summoning of officials of the Bangladesh Free Trade Union Congress was entirely consistent with both the legislation and the Convention. The Government also points out that the powers of the Registrar in relation to the deregistration of trade unions (for example because of financial irregularities) is subject to judicial review by virtue of section 10(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, as amended in 1985. However, the Committee notes that there does not appear to be any express provision for judicial review of the exercise of the Registrar's powers under section 10(g) of the Industrial Relations Rules 1977. The Committee asks the Government to inform it whether or not this is indeed the case.

The Committee also notes the views of the Bangladesh Employers' Association to the effect that union officers hold the funds of the union on trust for the members, and that accordingly it is appropriate that the law should seek to protect the interests of those members. The Committee refers again to paragraph 188 of its General Survey of 1983, where it points out that investing an administrative authority (such as the Registrar) with broad discretionary powers to examine the papers of an organisation creates a grave danger of interference with the guarantees provided by the Convention. Accordingly it requests the Government to keep it informed of any practical problems which may arise from the continued operation of these provisions - especially in the form of complaints by registered unions of undue interference on the part of the Registrar.

The 30 per cent requirement

The Committee again notes that section 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, provides that no trade union may be registered under the Ordinance unless it has a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed. It also notes that section 10(1)(g) of the Ordinance gives the Registrar the power to cancel the registration of a trade union where its membership has fallen short of 30 per cent of the workers at the establishment(s) concerned. Decisions under both of these provisions are subject to judicial review.

In its report, the Government reiterates its opinion that the purpose of sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) is to help the unions to maintain their numbers and ensure social peace by avoiding a multiplicity of small competing unions. The Government also points out that no group of workers, union or federation, has ever raised any doubt about the efficacy of these provisions.

The Committee has taken the view that provisions like section 10(1)(g) which grant an administrative authority discretionary powers over the existence of a trade union, are equivalent to a restriction on the right of workers to establish and to join organisations of their own choosing without prior authorisation, as envisaged by Article 2 of the Convention (see General Survey, 1983, paragraphs 104-119). It is obviously appropriate that there be a right of apppeal against decisions of the Registrar under sections 7 and 10 of the Ordinance. However, the Committee points out that the existence of such a right of appeal does not of itself constitute a sufficient protection of the rights guaranteed by the Convention since it does not alter the nature of the powers conferred upon the Registrar in the first place (see General Survey, 1983, paragraph 117).

The Committee considers that, where the legislation lays down a criterion of a minimum number of members, this number should be a reasonable one. The figure of 30 per cent, applied generally both to small and to large establishments, is excessive in the opinion of the Committee, which considers that it may be an obstacle to the establishment of organisations (see General Survey, 1983, paragraphs 123-124).

The Committee urges once again the Government to reconsider the situation as a whole in the light of the above comments and to report any measure that is taken in order to give effect to the Convention. [The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 76th Session.]