Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO306, March 1997

1. 70. The Committee already examined the substance of this case at its May 1996 meeting, when it presented an interim report to the Governing Body (see 304th Report, paras. 57 to 96, approved by the Governing Body at its 266th Session (June 1996)).
2. 71. In communications dated 11 June 1996 and 30 January 1997, the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF) presented new allegations concerning further violations of trade union rights by the Government. The Government supplied further observations on the case in communications dated 3 September and 30 October 1996.
3. 72. Bangladesh 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. Previous examination of the case

1. 73. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) presented allegations to the effect that the Government had violated freedom of association principles by failing to provide protection to workers and trade unionists in several cases of employer resistance to the establishment of a new union in the garment industry in Bangladesh and to the carrying out of union activities. The ICFTU alleged that there had been industry resistance to the Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers' Union (BIGU) from the moment it had been formed in December 1994. In particular, there had been systematic violations of workers' rights at the Palmal Knitwear Factory in Dhaka. The repeated violations occurring there included beatings, forced resignations, dismissals, blacklisting, threats and other types of intimidation of workers and their family members as well as an attack on the office and study centre of BIGU in Dhaka. In order to defend workers' rights, BIGU had been involved, since the beginning of 1995, in a number of labour court cases involving garment companies.
2. 74. The Government, for its part, indicated that it had carried out a thorough inquiry concerning the allegations made. Following this inquiry, however, it could not detect any violation of trade union rights. It rejected any anti-union motives on the part of the employer, basing itself almost exclusively on information provided by the company itself. Moreover, the Government pointed out that, according to the management of the company, the allegations were promoted from outside so as to damage the business prospects of the garment industry which was entirely export-oriented.
3. 75. At its June 1996 Session, in the light of the Committee's interim conclusions, the Governing Body approved the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee urges the Government to extend its inquiry in order to clear up contradictions in the evidence provided so far in this case generally and to give a balanced view which takes account of the position of the complainant to a larger extent.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether BIGU has applied for registration and if this is the case to provide information on the progress of BIGU's application and to communicate the result of the registration procedure as soon as it is available.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to further investigate the motives of Palmal for sending photographs of workers to other employers and to keep it informed.
   • (d) The Committee requests the Government to further clarify the circumstances leading to the terminations of the employment of: (a) Mr. M. Rahman and Mr. N. Ahmed, (b) of eight BIGU members, and (c) of two women workers and to keep it informed.
   • (e) The Committee requests the Government to further investigate the allegation that 11 BIGU members have been discredited and that four BIGU members were threatened with transfer. It also asks the complainant to supply more ample and precise information on the latter allegation.
   • (f) The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to clarify Ms. Kalpona's employment situation, to assure that she can continue to work in her post at Palmal, if she so wishes, and to make sure that she is not discriminated against because of her trade union activities.
   • (g) The Committee requests the Government to immediately institute an independent judicial inquiry into the attack on the trade union premises and the assault on trade unionists on 21 November 1995 and to keep it informed.
   • (h) The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the decisions of the labour courts relating to this case as soon as they become available.

B. The Government's reply

1. 76. In its communication of 30 October 1996, the Government indicates that an Inquiry Committee was established vide office order No. POKO/SRAMA-2 (17) 96/51 dated 20 July 1996 of the Ministry of Labour and Manpower in order to look more deeply into alleged violations of freedom of association by Palmal Knitwear Factory Ltd. (hereinafter "Palmal"). The Inquiry Committee convenor issued a notice upon the President of BIGU to come up with all relevant papers and witnesses, if any, on 14 September 1996 in the office of the Director of Labour. A similar notice was also served upon the Managing Director of Palmal. The Government states that both parties, who were present on the fixed date, as were Inquiry Committee members, gave their respective statements. Both parties were allowed to cross-examine the other's statement so that the Inquiry Committee would have a fair and balanced view of the issues raised. Finally, a joint statement was recorded and read over to both parties, and being satisfied, they signed it. The Government states that the findings of the Inquiry Committee, in respect of the recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association, are as follows.
2. 77. First of all, BIGU applied for registration on 18 May 1995. Its application was rejected by the Registrar on 14 June 1995 on the ground that it failed to fulfil the conditions laid down in section 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter "IRO") and also because of the absence of any legal provision enabling the registration of a trade union on a nationwide basis when there is more than one employer. The number of employers involved in this case was 122. Moreover, there had been a court verdict debarring registration of one union comprising workers from different establishments owned by different employers. BIGU appealed to the second Labour Court in Dhaka against the rejection order of the Registrar. The case is still pending in the Labour Court.
3. 78. Regarding the motives of Palmal for sending photographs of workers to other employers, the Inquiry Committee questioned the Managing Director of Palmal, Mr. Nurul Haque Sikdar, in this connection. The Government states that Mr. Sikdar denied this allegation altogether. The complainant also failed to produce any documentary evidence in this respect. The Government adds that according to the Managing Director, the management had had information that some of the absentee workers of Palmal were working in some other factories. To confirm this information, the management had sent a letter only to those factories where the absentee workers were reportedly working. But there was no proof that the management had sent photographs of the absentee workers to those factories. Thus, according to the Government, there appeared to be no other motive behind the management's actions other than to confirm the absentee workers' employment in the other factories so as to initiate departmental and legal action against them.
4. 79. Regarding the circumstances leading to the termination of employment of Mr. M. Rahman and Mr. N. Ahmed, the Government refers to the Managing Director's statement that neither of them had been terminated from service. They had voluntarily resigned. The Managing Director submitted the photocopy of the resignation letters of the two workers.
5. 80. As regards the alleged termination of employment of eight BIGU members, the Government indicates that the Managing Director stated that these workers had not been dismissed from service. They had remained absent without the management's authorization for a long time. The management had called all of them to resume their duties but they did not turn up. They had submitted their grievances to the competent authority who replied to their grievances. But they were not satisfied and filed cases in the Labour Court against the management. Those cases are still pending in the Labour Court for disposal. Later two BIGU members withdrew their cases and voluntarily resigned from service.
6. 81. As regards the forced resignation of two women workers, the Government indicates that the Managing Director stated that they were dismissed after exhausting all the procedures as provided for under the Employment of Labour Act, 1965.
7. 82. Regarding the allegation that 11 BIGU members had been discredited, and that four of them were threatened with transfer, the Government points out that the Managing Director denied this allegation during the inquiry. When the complainant was asked about this, she failed to produce any witness and supporting documentary evidence in this respect. On the other hand, the Managing Director produced a paper sent to the Human Rights Organization by 155 workers of Palmal alleging that the 11 absentee and dismissed workers of Palmal, in connivance with some national and international agencies, were working against the interest of the workers as well as of the factory. It was alleged by the complainant that the management of Palmal wrote a letter to the Human Rights Organization in this respect but she could not produce any document.
8. 83. Regarding the threat of transfer of four workers, namely Mr. Badal (mechanic), Mr. Nurul Islam (supervisor), Mr. Shahidul Islam (packing man), and Mr. Hashem (packing man), the Government indicates that the complainants could not produce any document in support of the allegation. The Government points out that the Managing Director had indicated that in the case of technical workers it was general practice that such workers could be transferred from one factory to another (with the same employers and producing similar type of goods) with their consent. But till today, none of them had been transferred.
9. 84. As regards the dismissal of Ms. Kalpana, the Government indicates that according to the Managing Director, she had been dismissed from service after exhausting all the legal procedures as laid down in the Employment of Labour Act, 1965. In reply, Ms. Kalpana stated that she did not even get any notice. The Managing Director stated that she was served notice through registered post at her address available in the factory's office record. But she refused to accept it and the notice was returned to the factory which was produced before the Inquiry Committee. In spite of all this, the management was still agreeable to appoint her as per her qualifications in Palmal but she wanted to impose certain conditions which were contradictory to prevailing labour laws. Ms. Kalpana is not unemployed at present. The Managing Director of Palmal stated that she had worked in Jamuna Knitting and Dyeing Garments Ltd. from 9 October 1995 as machine operator and later on she had also worked in Southern Services Ltd. from 19 December 1995 as junior operator. The Managing Director further claimed that she was now working in AAFLI with a monthly salary of tk3,000. But Ms. Kalpana denied this.
10. 85. Regarding the alleged attack on trade union premises, the Inquiry Committee held an on-the-spot inquiry at 200, Santibag, Dhaka where the BIGU (unregistered) office had been established. At the time of the inquiry, the organizing secretary, Nazma Sheikh and one person were present. But neither of them could confirm that the alleged attack had been carried out by the employers of Palmal Knitwear Factory Ltd. The president of BIGU stated that an FIR had been lodged with the Motijheel Police Station for the alleged attack but she failed to produce any document in support of her statement.
11. 86. Over these various issues, from the workers' side, IRO cases Nos. 48/95, 49/95, 50/95, 51/95, 53/95, 54/95 and 55/95 were filed in the labour courts, of which IRO cases Nos. 49/95 and 53/95 had been withdrawn by the complainant. The remaining cases are still pending for disposal in the labour courts as is IRO Case No. 74/95. Another IRO case No. 95/95 has also been withdrawn by the complainant. The Government states that the outcome of the pending cases will be made available through gazette notification once the labour courts concerned have handed down their respective decisions.

C. The complainant's further information

1. 87. In its communication dated 11 June 1996, the ITGLWF indicates that its latest complaint relates to the situation at Saladin Garments Ltd. where workers have over the past couple of months suffered intimidation and harassment and have faced very severe threats. The circumstances are as follows. The workers of Saladin Garments Ltd. were preparing themselves for the formation of a union from January 1996. For this process they were collecting "D" forms - forms signed by workers indicating they want a particular union. These forms are required by the Government to register a trade union. This information reached the management of Saladin Garments Ltd.
2. 88. On 9 April 1996 the workers of Saladin filed their application for union registration with the Registrar of Trade Unions. Several days prior, factory management started to threaten workers involved in organizing and demanded that they cease their union activities and that they divulge the names of all workers who had signed "D" forms. On 8 April, it is alleged that production manager, Mr. Nannu, mechanic in charge, Mr. Jainal, and floor in charge (finishing), Mr. Monir, took a worker named Chand Mia to the office and pressured him to give the list of the workers involved in the union process. He was detained in the room until 6.30 p.m. On 9 April, it is alleged that production manager Nannu along with his aides again took Chand Mia to his room and detained him. He was again interrogated about the names of workers who had signed up for the union. During the interrogation, he was slapped, told "we'll see how you form a union" and Production Manager Nannu held a blade to his throat. A General Diary No. 522 dated 9 April 1996 was lodged in Sobuj Bagh Police Station.
3. 89. The workers wrote a letter to the factory Managing Director, Mr. Abdus Salam Murshedi, informing management that they were exercising their legal right to form a union. The letter included the names of the workers involved in the formation of the union and asked for management's cooperation. (The letter was written on 8 April 1996 and reached the factory approximately two days later.) After receipt of the said letter it is alleged that Mr. Abdus Salam Murshedi called Ms. Asma, President of the union, into his office. With him one Mr. Jibon (an outside thug of Saladin Garments) and Mr. Seraj, administrative officer started interrogating Asma about her involvement in union affairs. The Managing Director told Ms. Asma not to form any union with AAFLI's assistance since AAFLI was destroying the garment industry. He said if workers wanted to form a union, management would help them to do so. The Managing Director told Asma if she did not refrain from her union activities, the workers "will see five dead bodies after the (national) election". He then stated "the lawyer (of BIGU) has already been attacked but still she did not refrain from her work. She shall be punished for this." (In an apparent reference to the 21 November 1995 attack on the BIGU office in which the lawyer was doused with petrol and terrorized by armed thugs.)
4. 90. Thereafter the management started issuing show-cause notices (misconduct letters) and other warning letters to the workers involved directly in the union. The management started making the women workers work at night on a regular basis. Sometimes a single woman worker was made to work in an isolated place without security. (Night work for women is prohibited under the Factories Act of 1965.) Women workers sent letters to the Managing Director protesting night work, but management continued with the practice. Intimidations, threats and public humiliations are now routine and resulted in the resignation of the union General Secretary, Ms. Shuli, and another woman union member. The ITGLWF contends that even if these allegations are only partially correct, they represent a very severe abuse of basic workers' rights. It insists that these workers should have the protection of the authorities and are afforded the right to organize in accordance with the laws of Bangladesh and relevant ILO Conventions. The women workers who resigned as a result of the intense intimidation and harassment they faced should be reinstated.
5. 91. In its communication of 30 January 1997, on the Committee's request, the ITGLWF provides more information regarding the threat of transfer of four BIGU members as requested to do so by the Committee during its previous examination of this case (304th Report, para. 96(e)). The ITGLWF indicates that in late July 1995, four active BIGU members were told by factory General Manager, Mr. Shamim Reja Pinu, that as of August 1995 they would be transferred to another factory in the Palmal group of companies which was located approximately 25 km from their current workplace and homes in Dhaka. On 28 July 1995, the workers sent letters to management explaining the economic hardships the transfer would pose. Later, following external pressure, the transfer order was abandoned.

D. The Government's further reply

1. 92. In its communication of 3 September 1996, the Government indicates that the ITGLWF's complaint has already been inquired into by the Department of Labour. It provides a summarized version of the inquiry report as follows.
2. 93. As regards the formation of a trade union by the workers of Saladin Garments Ltd., it is a fact that the process started since January 1996 and the application for registration of the newly formed union was actually filed on 3 April 1996 with the Registrar of Trade Unions (RTU), Dhaka Division. The RTU processed the said application as per sections 7 and 9 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) 1969 and rejected the same on 3 June 1996 as per section 10 of the IRO 1969 for not meeting the legal requirements. The alleged complaint that the workers involved in the process of forming a trade union were harassed and intimidated by the management had not been proved during the inquiry.
3. 94. As regards the incident of torturing in various ways of Mr. Chand Mia, a worker, on 8 and 9 April 1996 by the Production Manager, Mr. Nannu, mechanic in charge, Mr. Jainal, and floor in charge (finishing), Mr. Monir, this also could not be proved at the time of the inquiry. Even Ms. Asma, President of the union, admitted that she did not see Mr. Chand Mia being physically tortured and that she simply learnt of it. The police had yet to take any action on General Diary No. 522 dated 9 April 1996.
4. 95. The allegation that management advised Ms. Asma, President of the proposed union not to form a union with the assistance of outsiders is admitted to by the management. But no evidence could be found during the inquiry that Ms. Asma was issued show-cause notices only because of her involvement in the establishment of a trade union. She, along with other workers, were issued show-cause notices for various other reasons as per the existing laws of the country.
5. 96. As regards the allegation that women workers were made to work on a regular basis in an isolated place without security, the Government indicates that the management partly denied the allegation. It stated that on an emergency basis, women workers were sometimes required to work at night and that they were paid overtime allowance for the additional work. The allegation that a single woman worker was required to work at night was termed as ridiculous by the management, as in a garment factory, the work is done in shifts by a group of workers working together. Finally, the Government points out that in the management's view, as the two women workers had resigned voluntarily, there was no room for their reinstatement.
6. 97. In addition to the above findings, the Government states that in the garment sector in Bangladesh, efforts are being made to enforce legal provisions under the Factories Act, 1965 and the Shops and Estts. Act, 1965, as strictly as possible. No trade union of workers or employers is discouraged to be registered under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Government only ensures that the union is registered in accordance with the requirements of the IRO, 1969. Moreover, any union, aggrieved by any decision of a RTU, has the right to appeal against him in the Labour Appellate Tribunal.

E. The Committee's conclusions

1. 98. The Committee notes that there are two sets of allegations in this case: first those that relate to the trade union situation at Palmal Knitwear Factory Ltd. which were already examined by the Committee and secondly, those relating to the trade union situation at Saladin Garments Ltd. The Committee proposes to deal first of all with the allegations concerning violations of freedom of association by Palmal Knitwear Factory Ltd.
   • Trade union situation at Palmal Knitwear Factory Ltd.
2. 99. Before examining the matters at issue individually, the Committee recalls that in view of the number and seriousness of the allegations ensuing from this complaint, it had requested the Government, during the previous examination of this case, to extend its inquiry in order to clear up contradictions in the evidence provided by the complainant and the management thus far. In this respect, the Committee notes that an Inquiry Committee was established by the Ministry of Labour and Manpower on 20 July 1996 to look more deeply into alleged violations of freedom of association by Palmal Knitwear Factory Ltd. (hereinafter "Palmal"). The Committee further notes from the Inquiry Report provided by the Government that the President of BIGU, Ms. Kalpana Akhter and BIGU activist, Ms. Hasna Hena as well as the Managing Director of Palmal, Mr. Nurul Haque Sikdar presented their respective statements to the Inquiry Committee whose members were comprised of Mr. Mella Golam Sarwar (Director of Labour), Mr. Khurshid Alam Chawdhury (Joint Director of Labour) and Mr. Lokman Hekim Talukder (Assistant Chief of Labour).
3. 100. The Committee notes with regret however that although both parties signed a joint statement pursuant to this second inquiry, the latter still did not resolve the contradictory statements provided by the two parties. It is the Committee's understanding that this was largely due to the fact that whenever the Managing Director denied an allegation, the complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the allegation in question. The Committee would remind the Government, however, that in such instances it may often be difficult, if not impossible, for a worker to furnish proof of an act of anti-union discrimination of which he or she has been the victim. The Committee also notes the inconsistency in the evidence given by the Managing Director which affects the credibility of his evidence. Moreover, since the allegations in this case concern beatings, forced resignations, dismissals, blacklisting, threats and other types of intimidation of workers and their family, the Committee must once again draw the Government's attention to the importance it attaches to the principle 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 against the leaders and members of unions, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 47).
4. 101. The Committee further notes that several cases, mainly IRO Cases Nos. 48/95, 50/95, 51/95, 54/95, 55/95 and 74/95, are still pending in labour courts concerning incidents referred to by the complainant. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of these decisions as soon as they are handed down.
   • Registration of BIGU
5. 102. As regards the registration of BIGU as a trade union, the Government states first of all that BIGU's application was rejected by the Registrar on 14 June 1995 on the ground that it failed to fulfil the conditions laid down in section 7(2) of the IRO. The Committee would nevertheless draw the Government's attention to the fact that for several years now, the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has been asking the Government to review section 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the IRO in order to bring them into conformity with Article 2 of Convention No. 87. These two provisions respectively impose 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 (see observation, Report III, Part 4A of 1997, page 151 of the English text). The Committee, like the Committee of Experts, requests the Government to amend its legislation in this respect.
6. 103. Another reason put forward by the Government for non-registration is the absence of any legal provision enabling the registration of a trade union on a nationwide basis whose workers are employed by several employers and a court verdict barring registration of a union comprising workers from different establishments owned by different employers. However, the Committee has considered on previous occasions that the free exercise of the right to establish and join unions, implies the free determination of the structure and composition of unions and that under Article 2 of Convention No. 87, workers have the right to establish organizations of their own choosing, including organizations grouping together workers from different workplaces and different cities (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 275 and 283).
7. 104. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the appropriate steps to ensure that the appropriate legislative amendments, in the light of the principles expressed above, are made to the IRO so that workers have the right to establish and join the organization of their own choosing without any restrictions. It urges the Government to take appropriate steps to ensure that BIGU is granted registration as a trade union organization in conformity with the requirements of Convention No. 87 which has been ratified by Bangladesh. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard and draws the attention of the Committee of Experts to this aspect of the case.
   • Blacklisting of workers and trade unionists
8. 105. The Committee notes that during the course of the second inquiry, the Government indicates that the Managing Director of Palmal completely denies having sent photographs of workers to other employers. The Government states that the management had only wanted to confirm information that some absentee workers of Palmal were reportedly working in some other factories. The management had therefore sent letters (but no photographs) to those factories to confirm the absentee workers' employment there. The Government concludes that since the complainant did not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations of blacklisting by management, there was no other motive behind the management's actions. The Committee notes however, that the management's statement is in direct contradiction with what it had said during the course of the first inquiry and the previous examination of this case. At that time, the Palmal management had admitted to sending letters with the photos of the absentee workers, although it maintained that this was done only to confirm that absentee workers were employed in other factories (304th Report, para. 76). In view of this contradiction, the Committee would recall that workers face many practical difficulties in proving the real nature of their dismissal or denial of employment, especially when seen in the context of blacklisting, which is a practice whose very strength lies in its secrecy (see Digest, op. cit., para. 710). The Committee considers that these allegations, if proven, constitute a violation of freedom of association principles.
   • Intimidation, beating and resignation of Mr. M. Rahman and N. Ahmed
9. 106. Regarding the circumstances leading to the termination of employment of Mr. M. Rahman and Mr. N. Ahmed, the Committee notes with concern that the Government merely repeats the statement of the Managing Director of Palmal to the effect that neither of the above had been terminated from service; they had resigned voluntarily. The Government adds that proof of this was the photocopy of resignation letters of the two workers submitted by the Managing Director. In view of the seriousness of the allegations according to which these two BIGU activists were both intimidated, beaten and forced to resign, the Committee once again draws the Government's attention to the fundamental principle that intimidation, assaults on the physical integrity of trade unionists and forced resignations constitute a serious violation of freedom of association (see Digest, op. cit., paras. 46, 47 and 702). The Committee requests the Government to ensure the reinstatement of these persons in their jobs, if they so wish.
   • Termination of employment of eight BIGU members
10. 107. As regards the reasons for terminating eight BIGU members, the Committee notes that the Government in its inquiry report, refers to the Managing Director's statement that these eight workers had not been dismissed but rather had been on long unauthorized absence from duty. The Committee notes that although the Government does not mention the complainant's point of view in this matter, the complainant had alleged, during the previous examination of this case by the Committee, that these eight BIGU members had been terminated as a consequence of defending workers' rights on compensation issues, i.e. in the exercise of trade union activities (304th Report, para. 64). The Committee notes the Government's statement that there are now six cases pending in the Labour Court relating to this incident. In view of the contradictory statements as to the reasons for terminating these eight BIGU members, the Committee once again recalls that no person should be dismissed or prejudiced in his or her employment by reason of legitimate trade union activities, and it is important to forbid and penalize in practice all acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of employment (see Digest, op. cit., para. 696). The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of judgements handed down in the cases pending in the labour courts and to take measures to reinstate the workers concerned if their dismissals are proven discriminatory.
    • Discrediting of 11 BIGU members and threat of transfer of four BIGU members
11. 108. The Committee notes that there are still conflicting statements on whether the company in question had attempted to discredit 11 BIGU members by exercising pressure on 155 workers to sign blank sheets of paper which were then attached to a cover page condemning the activities of these 11 BIGU members who had brought law suits against the company. In view of the failure to clear up this matter during the course of the Government's second inquiry, the Committee would recall that in such instances it may often be difficult, if not impossible, for a worker to furnish proof of an act of anti-union discrimination of which he or she has been the victim.
12. 109. Regarding the threat of transfer of four BIGU members, namely Messrs. Badal, Nurul Islam, Shahidul Islam and Hashem, the Government indicates that the complainant could not produce any evidence in support of this allegation during the course of the inquiry. The ITGLWF contends, however, that these four BIGU members were threatened with transfer to another factory in the Palmal group of companies which was located approximately 25 km from their current workplace and homes in Dhaka. Later, following external pressure, the transfer order was abandoned. In view of the contradiction between these two statements, the Committee recalls that threats of transfer, depending on the circumstances, may constitute anti-union discrimination in employment (see Digest, op. cit., para. 695).
    • Forced resignation of two women workers
13. 110. The Committee notes that the Government, on the basis of its inquiry, indicates that the two women workers were dismissed after exhausting all the procedures provided for under the Employment of Labour Act, 1965, and that they were therefore not forced to resign under pressure of blacklisting because of their contacts with BIGU. The Government does not however explain for what reason these two women workers were dismissed. The Committee would draw the Government's attention to the fact that it considers the allegation of forced resignation under pressure of blacklisting, if proven, to constitute a severe form of anti-union discrimination.
    • Attempted forced resignation and dismissal of Ms. Kalpana
14. 111. As regards the attempted forced resignation and dismissal of Ms. Kalpana, the Committee notes that Ms. Kalpana is no longer employed at Palmal despite her wishes to the contrary. (This was admitted to by the Managing Director who stated during the course of the inquiry that she was served notice through registered post but that she refused to accept it). Moreover, the Committee notes that during the inquiry, the Managing Director insisted that she was now employed elsewhere whereas Ms. Kalpana denied this. The Committee regrets that the inquiry failed to clarify this matter, especially since the Committee had previously noted that Ms. Kalpana was exposed to serious difficulties in her employment because of trade union activities (304th Report, para. 90). The Committee would therefore reiterate its request to the Government to take the necessary steps to clarify Ms. Kalpana's employment situation, to ensure that she can continue to work in her post at Palmal, if she so wishes and to make sure that she is not discriminated against because of her trade union activities. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.
    • Attack on trade union premises and physical assault on trade unionists
15. 112. The Committee regrets that the Government did not comply with the Committee's earlier request to institute an independent judicial inquiry into the attack on trade union premises on 21 November 1995 and the physical assault on trade unionists present (304th Report, para. 96(g)). Furthermore, the Committee notes with concern that the second government inquiry has not shed any further light on this serious incident. Deploring this severe violation of trade union rights, the Committee recalls that attacks against trade unionists and trade union premises and property constitute serious interference with trade union rights. Criminal activities of this nature create a climate of fear which is extremely prejudicial to the exercise of trade union activities (304th Report, Case No. 1862 (Bangladesh), para. 94).
16. 113. In view of the fact that two inquiries carried out by the Government have failed to resolve the contradiction in the evidence provided by the respective parties, the Committee would request the Government to institute an independent judicial inquiry into the various allegations made and to keep it informed of the results thereof. The proceedings of such an inquiry could possibly be facilitated by calling as witnesses BIGU members who were allegedly subjected to various acts of anti-union discrimination.
    • Trade union situation at Saladin Garments Ltd.
17. 114. As regards the ITGLWF'S allegations concerning the trade union situation at Saladin Garments Ltd., the Committee notes the Government's statement that the Department of Labour has already carried out an inquiry into the ITGLWF'S complaint. The Committee notes with serious concern however, that this government inquiry, like the ones carried out with regard to the trade union situation at Palmal, rejects any anti-union motives on the part of the employer. The Committee regrets that the Government, during the course of the inquiry, based itself almost exclusively on information provided by the management of Saladin Garments Ltd. and did not take account of the position of the complainant to a larger extent. In view of the seriousness of the allegations made - severe harassment, death threats, physical assaults, forced resignations and other types of intimidation of workers at Saladin Garments Ltd. - the Committee must once again draw the Government's attention to the importance it attaches to the principle that the rights of workers' organizations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of unions, and it is for governments to ensure that this principle is respected (see Digest, op. cit., para. 47). In the light of this principle, the Committee requests the Government to institute a genuinely independent judicial inquiry into the various allegations made and to keep it informed in this regard.
    • Registration of new union at Saladin Garments Ltd.
18. 115. The Committee notes the Government's statement that the application for registration of a newly formed union at Saladin Garments Ltd. was rejected by the Registrar on 3 June 1996 for not having met the requirements of sections 7, 9 and 10 of the IRO 1969. The Committee must stress once again that the above provisions are not in conformity with Article 2 of Convention No. 87 for the very same reasons enumerated in the preceding paragraphs pertaining to the registration of BIGU. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take appropriate steps to ensure that the newly formed union at Saladin Garments Ltd. is granted registration so as to enable it to exercise legitimate trade union activities.
    • Torture of Mr. Chand Mia
19. 116. As regards the alleged torture of a worker, Mr. Chand Mia, by Messrs. Nannu, Jainal and Monir on 8 and 9 April 1996, the Committee regrets that the Government merely confines itself to stating that this allegation could not be proved at the time of the inquiry and that even the President of the union did not see Mr. Chand Mia being physically tortured but simply learnt of it later on. The Committee further deplores the fact that the police had taken no action on a complaint lodged on 9 April 1996. The Committee believes that an independent judicial inquiry is especially warranted here since it has considered on previous occasions that in the event of assaults on the physical or moral integrity of individuals, an independent judicial inquiry should be instituted immediately with a view to clarifying the facts, determining responsibility, punishing those responsible and preventing the repetition of such acts (see Digest, op. cit., para. 53).
    • Harassment and intimidation of union President and members; forced resignation of two women workers
20. 117. As regards the alleged harassment and intimidation of the union President, Ms. Asma, and of other workers for attempting to establish an independent union, the Committee notes the Government's statement that during the course of its inquiry, the management did admit to "advising" Ms. Asma not to form a union with the assistance of outsiders. The Government maintains however, that Ms. Asma and other workers were issued show-cause notices (misconduct letters) later on not because of their involvement in the establishment of a trade union but for "various other reasons" as per the laws of the country.
21. 118. Similarly, as regards the alleged forced resignation of union General Secretary, Ms. Shuli, and another women union member, the Committee notes that the Government merely repeats the management's view that as the two women workers had resigned voluntarily, there was no room for their reinstatement.
22. 119. In a general manner, the Committee notes that the Government, while not denying the anti-union attitude of the management, does not shed further light on it during the course of its inquiry. The Committee considers that these allegations complete the picture of active anti-union discrimination by the management. It further considers that attempting to obtain lists of unionists for the purpose of having a basis for systematic anti-union activities, such as issuing death threats and misconduct letters to union leaders and members as well as engineering their forced resignations, is a severe violation of freedom of association principles. It therefore requests the Government to keep it informed of the outcome of the independent judicial inquiry into the above allegations.