CMNT_TITLE

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Pakistan (RATIFICATION: 1952)

Other comments on C098

Observation

Direct Request

DISPLAYINFrench - SpanishAlle anzeigen

The Committee notes the observations from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2017, which refer to issues relating to the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and alleged anti-union dismissals, harassment and acts of interference, as well as the observations from the Pakistan Workers Federation (PWF) received on 25 October 2017 referring mainly to legislative issues under examination by the Committee and alleged acts of employer interference through systematic undue promotions. Furthermore, the Committee regrets that the Government has failed to provide its comments on the 2015 ITUC allegations concerning acts of anti-union discrimination and to fully respond to the 2012 ITUC allegations of anti-union dismissals and acts of interference in trade union internal affairs by employers (intimidation and blacklisting of trade unions and their members). Noting with concern the persistence and seriousness of the numerous allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination and interference, the Committee urges the Government to provide its comments on the abovementioned observations and to ensure that investigations are conducted by the public authorities into the relevant 2012, 2015 and 2017 ITUC and PWF allegations.

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments initially made in 2016.

Legislative issues. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had noted: (i) that the 18th Amendment to the Constitution had been enacted, whereby the matters relating to industrial relations and trade unions were devolved to the provinces; (ii) the adoption of the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), 2012, which regulates industrial relations and registration of trade unions and federations of trade unions in the Islamabad Capital Territory and in the establishments covering more than one province (section 1(2) and (3) of the IRA), and the content of which did not address most of the Committee’s previous comments; (iii) the adoption in 2010 of the Balochistan IRA (BIRA), the Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa IRA (KPIRA), the Punjab IRA (PIRA), and the Sindh Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act, all of which raised similar issues as the IRA. The Committee notes the adoption in 2013 of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013, (SIRA) which replaces the former industrial relations legislation and the amendment of the BIRA in 2015. It also notes the Government’s statement that the responsibility for the coordination of labour-related issues and the responsibility to ensure that provincial labour laws are drafted in accordance with international ratified Conventions lie with the federal Government.

Scope of application of the Convention. The Committee had previously noted that the IRA, BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA excluded numerous categories of workers (enumerated by the Committee in its observation on the application of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)) from their scopes of application, and – as far as the BIRA is concerned – workers employed in tribal areas. The Committee notes that the SIRA contains the same provisions as the KPIRA and PIRA. It also notes the Government’s indication that the exclusions are based on the peculiar nature of the workers’ organizations and their functioning, and that the list of exclusions has been reduced considerably compared to the former legislation. The Committee emphasizes that the only categories of workers which can be excluded from the application of the Convention are the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention). The Committee further notes that in its report under Convention No. 87 the Government states that according to the Government of Balochistan, necessary amendments to the BIRA are being proposed, in order to ensure that only armed forces and police are excluded from its scope and allow workers employed in the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas to enjoy freedom of association rights. The Committee notes however that the BIRA, as amended, still excludes tribal areas from its scope of application and retains the exclusions enumerated under Convention No. 87. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that it, as well as the Governments of the provinces, take the necessary measures in order to amend the legislation so as to ensure that all workers, with the only possible exception of the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State, fully enjoy the rights enshrined in the Convention.

With regard to public servants in particular, the Committee had previously noted that the IRA does not apply to workers employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen (section 1(3)(b)), and that the BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA add the words “as workmen employed by the Railway and Pakistan Post”. The Committee had requested the Government to specify the categories of workers employed in the administration of the State excluded from the scope of application of the legislation. The Committee notes that section 1(3)(ii) of the SIRA contains the same provision as the BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA. It also notes the Government’s indication that persons employed in the administration of the State means persons engaged in the federal secretariat and various attached departments as well as the federal legislature, and, similarly, persons employed in provincial civil secretariats as well as attached departments and provincial legislatures. While noting that these exclusions would be in line with the Convention, the Committee observes that the wording in section 1(3)(b) of the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA and SIRA “shall not apply to persons employed in the administration of the State other than those employed as workmen by the Railway and Pakistan Post” could imply that certain persons employed in public enterprises are deemed employed in the administration of the State and excluded from the scope. The Committee recalls that the determination of this category of workers is to be made on a case by case basis, in light of criteria relating to the prerogatives of the public authorities (and particularly the authority to impose and enforce rules and obligations and to penalize non-compliance), and that a distinction must be drawn between, on the one hand, public servants who by their functions are directly employed in the administration of the State (for example, in some countries, civil servants in government ministries and other comparable bodies and ancillary staff) who may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (for instance, employees in public enterprises, municipal employees and those in decentralized entities, as well as public sector teachers). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether persons employed in public enterprises are excluded from the scope of application of the industrial relations legislation, and, if so, to specify which categories of persons so employed are excluded, as well as any current or proposed legislation enabling them to fully benefit from the rights afforded by the Convention.

Export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee recalls that it had previously noted the Government’s statement that the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, had been finalized in consultation with the stakeholders and would be submitted to the Cabinet for approval. The Committee notes with regret that the Government provides no further information in this respect. The Committee urges the Government to provide detailed information on the progress made in adopting the Export Processing Zones (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2009, and a copy thereof as soon as they are adopted.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. Banking sector. The Committee had previously requested the Government to amend section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, imposing sanctions of imprisonment and/or fines on the grounds of the exercise of trade union activities during office hours. The Committee notes with deep concern that 14 years after its first observation on the issue, and after having stated on several occasions that legislative measures to repeal section 27-B were being taken, the Government now asserts that this provision is not in contravention with the Convention. The Committee expects that the relevant amendment will be adopted in the very near future and requests the Government to transmit a copy thereof.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee previously noted that, according to section 19(1) of the IRA, and sections 24(1) of the BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA, if a trade union is the only one in the establishment or group of establishments (or industry in the BIRA, KPIRA, PIRA), but it does not have at least one third of the employees as its members, no collective bargaining is possible at the given establishment or industries. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested the Government to amend similar sections which existed under the former industrial relations legislation. The Committee notes that section 24(1) of the SIRA contains the same provision as the BIRA, PIRA and KPIRA. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the minimum requirement of membership (33.3 per cent of total workers) is to promote democratic principles for the promotion of healthy and popular trade unionism; (ii) since Pakistan follows an industrial relations system where a union, after being elected as collective bargaining agent, is granted the exclusive right to represent all workers, collective bargaining rights cannot be granted to any union in the absence of a referendum process and merely on the basis of its own membership; and (iii) the Government of Balochistan and the Government of Sindh have informed that they are consulting with their respective provincial law departments. The Committee recalls that the determination of the threshold of representativity to designate an exclusive agent for the purpose of negotiating collective agreements which are destined to be applied to all workers in a sector or establishment is compatible with the Convention in so far as the required conditions do not constitute an obstacle to the promotion of free and voluntary collective bargaining in practice. In this regard, the Committee considers that if no union in a specific negotiating unit meets the required threshold of representativity to be able to negotiate on behalf of all workers, minority trade unions should be able to negotiate, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures in order to ensure that if there is no union representing the required percentage to be designated as the collective bargaining agent, collective bargaining rights are granted to the existing unions, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee underlines the importance that the Governments of the provinces take measures in the same direction.

The Committee had previously noted that: (i) shop stewards are either nominated (by a collective bargaining agent) or elected (in the absence of a collective bargaining agent) in every undertaking employing over 50 workers (25 workers in the case of the IRA) to act as a link between the workers and the employer, to assist in the improvement of arrangements for the physical working conditions and to help workers in the settlement of their problems (sections 23 and 24 of the IRA, 33 of the BIRA, 29 of the KPIRA and 28 of the PIRA); (ii) works councils (bipartite bodies), which are established in every undertaking employing over 50 workers, have multiple functions (sections 25 and 26 of the IRA, 39 and 40 of the BIRA, 35 and 36 of the KPIRA, and 29 of the PIRA), and its members are either nominated by a collective bargaining agent or, in the absence of a collective bargaining agent, elected (PIRA) or “chosen in the prescribed manner from amongst the workmen engaged in the establishment” (IRA, BIRA and KPIRA); (iii) management shall not take any decision relating to working conditions without the advice of workers’ representatives who can be nominated (by a collective bargaining agent) or be elected (in the absence of a collective bargaining agent) (section 27 of the IRA, 34 of the BIRA, 30 of the KPIRA and 29 of the PIRA); and (iv) joint management boards shall look after the fixation of job and piece-rate, planned regrouping or transfer of workers, laying down the principles of remuneration and introduction of remuneration methods, etc. (these functions are granted to works councils under the PIRA) (sections 28 of the IRA, 35 of the BIRA, and 31 of the KPIRA). The Committee had requested the Government to ensure that it, as well as the Governments of the provinces, take the necessary measures to amend the legislation so as to ensure that the position of trade unions is not undermined by the existence of other workers’ representatives, particularly when there is no collective bargaining agent. The Committee notes that sections 28, 29 and 30 of the SIRA contain the same provisions as the PIRA. It also notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the position of a single union having less than 33 per cent of the workforce as its membership is not jeopardized through the institutions of shop steward, workers representatives and joint management boards; (ii) workers in these institutions are elected through secret ballot and a union can campaign or canvass the workers to vote for its members for having the highest representation in these institutions; and (iii) moreover, these institutions work even in the presence of a collective bargaining agent. The Committee considers that, where there is no collective bargaining agent, the fact that the trade union can seek to persuade the workers during the elections to vote for its members to be represented in the above entities does not eliminate the risk of the union being undermined by workers’ representatives; moreover, in the case of the works council, its representatives are not elected but “chosen in the prescribed manner from amongst the workmen engaged in the establishment”, which aggravates the risk of the union being undermined by workers’ representatives. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that it, as well as the Governments of the provinces, take appropriate measures to guarantee that, in the absence of a collective bargaining agent, workers’ representatives in the above entities are not arbitrarily appointed, and that the existence of elected workers’ representatives is not used to undermine the position of the trade unions concerned or their representatives.

Compulsory conciliation. Having noted that compulsory conciliation is required by law in the collective bargaining process, the Committee had previously observed that the conciliator is appointed either directly by the Government (sections 43 of the BIRA, 39 of the KPIRA, 35 of the PIRA) or by the Commission whose ten members are appointed by the Government, with only one member representing employers and another one representing trade unions (section 53 of the IRA). The Committee had underlined that the system of appointment of the conciliator, as well as the composition of the Commission, could raise questions concerning the confidence of the social partners in the system. The Committee notes that section 36 of the SIRA contains the same provision as the BIRA, KPIRA and PIRA. It also notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the role of the conciliator begins after referral of an industrial dispute to him or her under the industrial relations legislation, and as of that moment a government official who is supposed to be a neutral person has to strive for bringing the parties to an amicable solution; and (ii) involving any social partner in appointing the conciliator may call into question the very neutrality of the conciliator and result in legal complications. The Committee considers that dispute resolution proceedings should not only be strictly impartial but also appear to be impartial both to the employers and to the workers concerned. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that it, as well as the Governments of the provinces, take measures to guarantee an impartial conciliation mechanism which has the confidence of the parties, for example, by ensuring that there is no opposition by the social partners to the appointment of their conciliators.

Concerning section 6 of the IRA, the Committee refers to its comments made under Convention No. 87 in its 2016 direct request.

The Committee expects that all necessary measures will be taken to bring the national and provincial legislation into full conformity with the Convention and requests the Government to provide information on all steps taken or envisaged in this respect. The Committee welcomes the ILO project financed by the Directorate-General for Trade of the European Commission to support GSP+ beneficiary countries to effectively implement international labour standards targeting four countries and notably Pakistan. The Committee trusts that the project will assist the Government in addressing the issues raised in this observation.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2018.]