Definitive Report - Report No 89, 1966

Case No 407 (Pakistan) - Complaint date: 07-JUL-64 - Closed

1. 21. The complaint by the Employees' Union of the West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation was submitted in a communication dated 7 July 1964. The Government furnished its observations thereon in a letter dated 12 September 1964.
2. 22. Pakistan has ratified the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 23. In their communication the complainants stated that their organisation had about 500 members. They alleged that the management of the West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, the employees of which had formed the union in question, engaged in unfair practices, infringed labour legislation and adopted a hostile attitude towards the union. They claimed that a number of workers had suffered because of the Corporation's actions.
2. 24. In its reply dated 12 September 1964 the Government stated that in its view the Corporation had acted in accordance with the law. The workers referred to by the complainants were suspended by the management and the question of whether or not they should be dismissed was pending before the Industrial Court. The Government also supplied a number of details regarding the events referred to in the complaint.
3. 25. Section 5 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, states that in the case of any industrial establishment in which 50 or more workmen are employed the employer must constitute a works committee consisting of representatives of the management and workmen. The regulations issued under this ordinance lay down the procedure for selecting the workers' representatives. Section 40 of these regulations requires the employer to ask the registered trade union for details of the total number of workers belonging to it and a breakdown of this figure for each section or department within his undertaking. In accordance with this regulation the management of the Corporation requested the necessary information from the employees' union in order to appoint the works committee.
4. 26. At that time the union had made an application to the Industrial Court for the formation of a joint advisory board in the Corporation. In its view, the works committee could not be constituted without the permission of the Industrial Court, in view of the workers' demand still pending before the latter. The management did not accept this argument and went ahead with the formation of the works committee in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance and proceeded to select the workers' representatives.
5. 27. As a result the employees' union distributed copies of a circular protesting against the management's action. This circular showed that the union urged the workers not to volunteer to sit on the management committee. In fact, however, 15 or 16 individuals put forward their names, but the management excluded all those who were connected with the union in any way and selected five persons to sit on the committee. The circular added that in this way the management had formed a works committee consisting entirely of its own nominees. The workers would have nothing to do with the committee and its decisions would not be binding on the union. The circular asked the workers to continue to submit their grievances through the union, which would take such action as was necessary. The management had decided to disregard the law, justice and principles at every stage. The union, for its part, had decided to make the management see the right course with the assistance of law and the Government and the co-operation of the workers themselves. After giving the names of the individuals who had joined the " illegal " works committee, the circular said that they would henceforth be excluded from the protection of the union, adding that if by a certain date they dissociated themselves from the committee the union would give them protection once more.
6. 28. The Government stated in its reply that as this circular contained malicious and harmful allegations the management conducted an inquiry and decided as a result that seven of the 11 union officials involved were guilty of undermining discipline and it thereupon decided to suspend them. It also applied to the Industrial Court to be allowed to dismiss them. In doing so, it acted in accordance with section 30 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, which states that a union official may not during the pendency of any proceedings be dismissed for misconduct not connected with the industrial dispute except with the previous permission of the Industrial Court; he may, however, be placed under suspension pending the disposal of the application to the Court for such permission. The Government adds that, should the Industrial Court decide that the management's action was justified, it could allow the workers in question to be dismissed; should it decide otherwise, however, they would be reinstated in their jobs.
7. 29. When it had the case before it at its meeting in November 1964 the Committee noted that the union officials referred to in the complaint were suspended following the publication of the circular on the ground that they were guilty of undermining discipline by making malicious and harmful allegations in the said circular. In other words, the suspension was ordered as a result of certain actions carried out by a number of workers in the undertaking in their capacity as union officials.
8. 30. The Committee recalled that, in a number of previous cases, it had emphasised that one of the fundamental principles of freedom of association is that workers should enjoy adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment-such as dismissal, transfer or other prejudicial matters-and that this protection is particularly desirable in the case of trade union officials because, in order to be able to perform their trade union duties in full independence, they must have the guarantee that they will not be prejudiced on account of the mandate which they hold from their trade unions. The Committee has stated that one way of ensuring such protection is to provide that these officials may not be dismissed either during their term of office or for a certain time thereafter, except, of course, for serious misconduct. The Committee has also considered that the guarantee of such protection in the case of trade union officials is also necessary in order to ensure that effect is given to the fundamental principle that workers' organisations should have the right to elect their representatives in full freedom.
9. 31. The Committee noted that Ordinance No. XIV of 1960 establishes certain safeguards for trade unions and their officials in that certain unfair practices of employers are punishable by fines. It is an unfair practice on the part of an employer
10. 28I.................................................................................................................................................
    • (a) to interfere with, restrain, or coerce his workmen in the exercise of their rights to organise, form, join or assist a trade union of their choice and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection;
    • (b) to interfere with the formation or administration of any trade union or to contribute financial or other support to it;
    • (c) to discharge, or otherwise discriminate against, any officer of a recognised trade union because of his being such an officer;
    • (d) to discharge, or otherwise discriminate against, any workman because he has made allegations or given evidence in an inquiry or proceeding relating to any matter such as is referred to in subsection (1) of section 28 D.
      • It is also an unfair practice on the part of an employer to refuse to allow a union to post up notices in any of the places where its members work. An employer must provide a union with all reasonable facilities for this purpose.
    • 32. In view of the protection which the law gives to trade unions, union officials and workers, and bearing in mind the principles stated in paragraph 30 above, the Committee considered that in the present case the question at issue was whether the behaviour of the workers in this undertaking in their capacity as union officials in fact constituted misconduct and whether it was serious enough to warrant disciplinary action against them by the management without entailing a breach of the standards and principles governing freedom of association.
11. 33. The Committee noted that the ordinance also forbids certain actions by trade unions or their executives, by stating that it is an unfair practice on the part of a recognised trade union if:
12. 28H..............................................................................................................................................
    • (a) the trade union takes part in an irregular or illegal strike;
    • (b) the executive or the members of the trade union advise or actively support or instigate an irregular or illegal strike;
    • (c) the executive fails to take necessary action against such of the members of the trade union as go on an illegal strike;
    • (d) an officer of the trade union submits any return required by or under this Act containing a false statement; or
    • (e) the executive or members of the trade union coerce a workman to join the trade union against his free will.
13. 34. The Committee likewise considered that the statutory provisions concerning works committees and their relationship with the trade unions were of interest from the standpoint of its examination of this case. According to Ordinance No. LVI of 1959 (mentioned earlier) and the regulations issued thereunder, the workers' representatives of a works committee are appointed by the employer in consultation with the trade union. In other words the latter's approval is not necessary for the appointments. In the case in question the union had refused to co-operate with the management in appointing the committee on the ground that it was engaged in a dispute with the management.
14. 35. The ordinance in question defines the function of a works committee as being to secure and preserve amity and good relations between the employer and workmen and to that end to comment upon matters of their common interest or concern and to endeavour to compose any material difference of opinion in respect of such matters. It did not appear from these provisions that works committees can take decisions which are binding upon a trade union or that workers are bound to submit their grievances to the committees. Their purpose would appear to be conciliation, i.e. the achievement and maintenance of good relations between employer and workers. The law does not appear to define the relationship between a union and a works committee once the latter has been appointed, so as to make it clear what the conduct of union officials towards the committees should be.
15. 36. The Committee also noted in its examination of the case the statements made by the union in its circular regarding the action of the management in setting up the works committee, the " illegal " character of that action, the steps taken by the union against the workers who agreed to join the works committee and the attitude urged upon the remaining workers in the undertaking towards the committee.
16. 37. In addition, the Committee noted that the measures taken against the union officials were not final and that the case was before the Industrial Court which would decide whether or not the dismissal was allowable by law and, if not, would order the workers to be reinstated in their jobs.
17. 38. In previous cases, the Committee recalled, it has followed the practice of not proceeding to examine matters which were the subject of pending judicial proceedings where the pending judicial proceedings might make available information of assistance to the Committee in appreciating whether or not allegations were well-founded.
18. 39. Accordingly, the Committee decided to request the Government to be good enough to inform it of the outcome of the proceedings against the union officials in question in the Industrial Court and in particular to furnish a copy of the judgment, together with the reasons therefor, and pending the receipt of this information adjourned its examination of the case.
19. 40. In a communication dated 28 October 1965 the Government states that it has been informed that the dispute has been amicably settled and that the office-bearers of the union, against whom there had been charges of defamatory publication, have since been reinstated.

41. The Committee therefore recommends the Governing Body to take note of the information furnished by the Government to the effect that the dispute which formed the basis of the complaint has been amicably settled and that, in particular, the office-bearers of the complaining organisation, whose employment had been suspended pending an application to the industrial Court to sanction their dismissal, have since been reinstated, and to decide that, in these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by pursuing further its examination of the case.