Effect given to the recommendations of the committee and the Governing Body - Report No 360, June 2011

Case No 2169 (Pakistan) - Complaint date: 25-JAN-02 - Closed

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 81. The Committee last examined this case, which concerns allegations of illegal detention of trade union leaders, violations of the right to collective bargaining and acts of intimidation, harassment and anti-union dismissals in the Pearl Continental Hotel, at its meeting in June 2010 [see 357th Report, paras 54–66]. On that occasion, the Committee noted that since the first examination of this case in June 2002, the Government had not provided information on the concrete measures taken to implement any of its recommendations. The Committee strongly urged the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that two wrongfully dismissed trade unionists, Bashir Hussain and Ghulam Mehboob, are reinstated in their posts without loss of pay or are paid an adequate compensation which would represent a sufficiently dissuasive sanction if reinstatement was not possible. It further requested the Government to instruct the competent labour authorities to undertake an in-depth investigation into the dismissal of nine other trade unionists and to ensure that, if it has been found that there had been anti-union discrimination, to ensure that the workers are reinstated in their posts without loss of pay. The Committee once again urged the Government to conduct an independent inquiry into the alleged beatings of Messrs Aurangzeg and Hidayatullah. The Committee also urged the Government to take the necessary measures in order to promote and facilitate collective bargaining at the Pearl Continental Hotel to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Pearl Continental Hotel Workers’ Union (PCHWU) was fully recognized as a collective bargaining agent by the management and to keep it informed in this respect.
2. 82. In a communication dated 3 May 2011, the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers Association (IUF) submitted additional information regarding the dismissals of Messrs Mehboob and Hussain, and 18 other union members. The IUF indicates that Labour Court No. 2 of Karachi ordered the reinstatement in their posts of the abovementioned workers and joins the relevant judicial decisions dated 26 February 2011 to its communication. The complainant considers that the reinstatement of these workers would constitute an important, if partial step in implementing the Committee’s recommendations. The IUF also indicates that the employer immediately filed an appeal of the above decision, and fears that the cases will yet again be delayed, the reinstatement cases being pending since 2002.
3. 83. In a communication dated 25 February 2011, the Government indicates that beating by the police of Mr Aurangzeg and Mr Hidayatullah was reported, and that while Mr Aurangzeg has migrated abroad, the case of Mr Hidayatullah for reinstatement in service was still pending in Labour Court No. 2 in Karachi, together with cases of 26 other workers.
4. 84. With regard to the hotel management’s application for cancellation of the union’s registration as a collective bargaining agent (CBA), the Government indicates that the application was dismissed by the Labour Court on 18 May 2006 and that the appeal was still pending before the Labour Appellant Tribunal.
5. 85. The Government reiterates that the criminal case lodged by the hotel management against members of the CBA union was dismissed by the Additional Session Judge of South Karachi on 9 February 2009, and was further dismissed in appeal in June 2009. The Government indicates that the concerned workers’ dismissal case is now pending before the High Court in Karachi. According to the Government the hearing was to take place on 4 March 2011.
6. 86. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government and the complainant organization. It notes with regret that, to a large extent, the Government reiterates the information provided previously. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the beatings of Messrs Aurangzeg and Hidayatullah by the police have been reported. The Committee deplores the Government’s failure to institute an independent inquiry into this allegation and recalls that in the event of assaults on the physical or moral integrity of individuals, it has considered that an independent judicial inquiry should be instituted immediately with a view to fully clarifying the facts, determining responsibility, punishing those responsible and preventing the repetition of such acts [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, para. 50]. The Committee therefore strongly urges the Government to conduct an independent inquiry as soon as possible in order to punish those responsible and to give the victims a compensation that would constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction. The Committee considers that the fact that Mr Aurangzeg has migrated abroad does not alleviate the obligation of the Government to punish those responsible in order to prevent a repetition of such acts against trade unionists in the future, nor does it eliminate the obligation for appropriate compensation.
7. 87. The Committee notes the information provided by the IUF regarding 20 reinstatement cases decided by Labour Court No. 2. It further notes that the Court’s remedy not only includes the workers’ reinstatement in their posts, but also grants them a compensation of 75 per cent of the benefits lost since their dismissal in 2002. It also notes the IUF’s indication regarding the employer’s decision to file an appeal following the reinstatement decision. The Committee further notes that even though the criminal cases lodged against trade union members have been dismissed, the reinstatement process of those workers has still not begun. The Committee recalls that justice delayed is justice denied and further recalls that it has always attached great importance to the principle of prompt trial in all cases, including in which trade unionists are charged with criminal offences [see Digest, op. cit., para. 105]. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that the appeal is heard without further delay. It also requests to be kept informed of the outcome of the appeal and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to reinstate the 20 workers pursuant to the decision of the Labour Court pending appeal. The Committee notes that in its communication, the Government refers 27 reinstatement cases and therefore understands that seven cases are still pending before the Labour Court. The Committee therefore expects that these cases will be examined without further delay. It further expects that if it is found that there has been anti-union discrimination, to ensure that the workers concerned are reinstated in their posts without loss of pay. If reinstatement is not possible for objective and compelling reasons, the Committee urges the Government to ensure that the workers receive adequate compensation so as to constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests to be kept informed in this respect. It further requests the Government to provide it with a copy of all relevant judicial decisions.
8. 88. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government regarding the dismissal of the hotel management’s application for cancellation of registration of CBA union by the Labour Court on 18 May 2006 and that the case is still pending on appeal. The Committee recalls from the previous examination of this case that for ten years, hotel employees have been without a collective agreement. The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to Article 4 of Convention No. 98 according to which, measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that employers should recognize, for collective bargaining purposes, the organizations representative of the workers employed by them. The recognition by an employer of the main unions represented in the undertaking, or the most representative of these unions, is the very basis for any procedure for collective bargaining on conditions of employment in the undertaking [see Digest, op. cit., paras 952–953]. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the PCHWU is fully recognized as a collective bargaining agent by the management and to promote and facilitate collective bargaining at the Pearl Continental Hotel and to keep it informed in this respect.