CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments on the application of the Convention made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2008. It further notes the latest comments submitted by the ITUC in a communication dated 26 August 2009.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection of workers in export processing zones (EPZs) against anti-union discrimination. Previously the Committee had taken note of the ITUC’s comments made in 2007 that there were numerous instances of dismissals, suspensions and harassment of trade unionists in EPZs, in particular in the garment and textile industries, and that the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) had failed to protect trade unionists, thus significantly undermining the extension of associational rights to workers in EPZs. The Committee had requested the Government to provide its observations on the ITUC’s comments and to furnish statistical information on the number of anti-union discrimination complaints submitted to the competent authorities and their outcomes since November 2006, when workers’ associations were authorized in the EPZs, as well as the number of collective agreements concluded in EPZ enterprises and their coverage. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that from August to December 2006, 16 trade unions in different garment industries were registered.

As concerns protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee notes that the Government, in its reply to the ITUC’s 2008 comments, indicates that the BEPZA has taken steps to protect the interests of workers and issued instructions pertaining to labour administration in the zones. Furthermore, industrial relations departments have been established in each EPZ; the industrial relations departments entertain worker grievances and complaints and engage in supervision and monitoring so as to maintain a harmonious industrial relations environment in the EPZs. While noting this information, the Committee notes that in its 2009 communication the ITUC refers once again to numerous instances of harassment, dismissal and violence against workers in the EPZ sector, particularly in the garment industry. The ITUC further states that although the law provides for the establishment of an EPZ Labour Tribunal and an EPZ Labour Appellate, these two bodies had yet to be established – thus denying workers access to the judicial system for their grievances.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that as required by the EPZ Workers’ Association and Industrial Relations Act, two conciliators and panels of arbitrators have been appointed to facilitate dispute resolution among the workers and employers. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that EPZ workers can also seek judicial redress in cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in respect of these matters, including information on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination in the EPZ sector submitted to the competent authorities, as well as the outcomes of those complaints.

The Committee notes the ITUC’s indication that at the start of 2008 workers voted to establish trade unions in 69 EPZ enterprises, and that pursuant to a decision of the BEPZA, 124 more EPZ enterprises must hold trade union elections by 2010. The Committee further notes that the Government, in its reply to the ITUC’s 2008 comments, states that referendums and elections on workers’ associations had been completed in 188 out of a total of 250 eligible EPZ enterprises – or 75.2 per cent of the total number of eligible enterprises. Noting these developments, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the extent of collective bargaining in the EPZ sector, including statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded and the number of workers they cover.

Article 2. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference. The Committee had previously noted that the Labour Act 2006 did not contain a prohibition of acts of interference designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or their organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the object of placing them under the control of employers or their organizations, and had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to adopt such a prohibition. The Committee notes that the Government refers to legal provisions which would confer partial protection against acts of interference. These provisions state that no employer (or anyone acting on his or her behalf) shall: induce any person to refrain from becoming, or to cease to be a member or officer of a trade union, by conferring or offering to confer any advantage on, or by procuring or offering to procure any advantage for such person or any other person; compel any officer of the collective bargaining agent to sign a memorandum of settlement or arrive at a settlement by using intimidation, coercion, pressure, threat, confinement to a place, physical injury, disconnection of water, power and telephone facilities and such other methods; or interfere with, or in any way influence, ballots. The Committee requests the Government to indicate which law contains the abovementioned provisions, as well as to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to adopt a comprehensive prohibition that: (1) covers acts of financial control of trade unions or trade union leaders, as well as acts of interference in internal trade union affairs; and (2) is coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against all acts of interference in the establishment and functioning of workers’ organizations by employers and vice versa.

Article 4. Legal requirements to collective bargaining. In its previous comment, the Committee had referred to section 179(2) of the Labour Act, which provides that a trade union may only obtain registration if it represents 30 per cent of the workers in an establishment, as well as to section 202(15) of the Labour Act, which provides that if there is more than one trade union in an enterprise, no trade union shall be declared to be the collective bargaining agent unless it obtains the votes of at least one third of the employees in a secret ballot. The Committee regrets that the Government provides no information respecting this matter. Noting once again that the percentage requirements for registration of a trade union and for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent set out in sections 179(2) and 202(15) of the Labour Act 2006 may impair the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report any measures taken or contemplated so as to lower these requirements.

Tripartite wages commissions in the public sector. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had requested the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). The Committee notes with regret that, as with the other legislative matters previously raised, the Government fails to provide information in this regard. In these circumstances, the Committee once again recalls that Article 4 relates to free and voluntary negotiations between employers or their organizations and workers’ organizations with a view to the regulation of wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of collective agreements, including with regard to public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or contemplated to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions, so as to favour free and voluntary negotiations between workers’ organizations and employers or their organizations, who should be able to appoint freely their negotiating representatives.

Finally, noting the Government’s statement that it is fully committed to complying with the ILO’s Conventions, the Committee requests the Government to adopt all the measures requested without delay.