Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - REPORT_NO332, November 2003

1. 808. The International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) presented a complaint – on behalf of its various civil aviation affiliates in Pakistan – in communications dated 7 August and 28 November 2002.
2. 809. The Government forwarded its observations in a communication dated 11 May 2003.
3. 810. 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), it has not ratified the Labour Relations (Public Service) Convention, 1978 (No. 151).

A. The complainant’s allegations

1. 811. In its communications dated 7 August and 28 November 2002, the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) alleges the abolition by the Government of fundamental trade union rights of the workers in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) and the subsequent failure of the legal system to restore these basic rights.
2. 812. In particular, the complainant states that on 7 June 2001, Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) management informed the unions in PIAC that it was suspending all unions and working agreements.
3. 813. On 5 July 2001, by Chief Executive Order No. 6 of 2001 (Suspension of Trade Unions and Existing Agreements) on PIAC, the Government implemented the above decision. The Order had the following effects:
   • n it banned the existence and operations of all trade unions in PIAC;
   • n All collective agreements were suspended and the Board of Directors was vested with the power to retire, terminate or remove any employee, and with the authority to fix new terms of employment and conditions of work;
   • n service with the corporation was declared a service of Pakistan, which subjected the PIAC employees to civil service regulations;
   • n PIAC was excluded from industrial relations legislation (Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, concerning the terms and conditions of employment, became non-applicable to the workers in PIAC).
4. 814. Under the executive order, Administrative Order No. 17, the Cockpit Crew Service Rules, was passed on 17 July 2001. It unilaterally rescinded the agreement between the Pakistan International Airline Pilot’s Association (PALPA) and PIAC, which regulated pilots’ working conditions. By Administrative Orders Nos. 14 and 18 of 17 July 2001, and No. 16 of 2 August 2001, PIAC management changed the terms and conditions of other airline employees. In addition, facilities conferred to trade union office bearers were withdrawn.
5. 815. Following the passing of the executive order and of Administrative Order No. 17, PALPA filed a suit on the grounds that the original order was illegal and unconstitutional. The case came to court on 28 August and was adjourned on 20 September 2001. The People’s Unity of PIA Employees and Air League of PIA Employees filed constitutional petitions with the aim of having the executive and subsequent administrative orders (Nos. 14, 16 and 18) rescinded. The organizations argued the unconstitutionality of the executive order and contested the authority and competence of the Government to pass it (under article 17 of the Constitution). The last three cases were heard on 15 February 2002, where the court found that the president and chief executive of Pakistan were legally competent to issue such an executive order for the advancement and good of the people, as well as in the interests of Pakistan’s image abroad. The court refused to strike down the executive order on the grounds that the violation of constitutional provision had not been established and that the law could not be challenged merely “because it violated some principle of justice and fair play”. The court further held that, under article 6 of the Constitution, it could be argued that at the time there was a state of emergency in Pakistan and that non-application of article 17 could thus not be challenged. It also found that the existing collective agreements had been obtained by coercion and that the executive order had been necessary to enable the removal of officers and employees who were (allegedly) “inefficient, incompetent and corrupt”. It said that the provision relating to the declaration of employees of PIAC as civil servants and empowering the officers of PIAC to dismiss, remove, retire or suspend the trade union activities were inserted into the executive order “as a precautionary measure”. Finally, it held that the effect of excluding PIAC employees from industrial relations law meant that there was no other legislation under which the two unions could register, including the Constitution.
6. 816. Finally, the complainant alleges that, in October 2002, the managing director of PIAC issued Administrative Order No. 25 providing for discontinuation of membership in associations of management staff.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 817. In its communication of 11 May 2003, the Government states that according to the information received from the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC), in view of the undue influence of registered trade unions transforming into collective bargaining agents (CBA), such as misappropriation of public funds, on various facilities extended to office bearers of CBA and political interference in the discipline as well as in the operation of the airline, the then chief executive of Pakistan considered it expedient to suspend trade unions and the operation of certain agreements through Chief Executive Order No. 6 of 2001. The employees of the corporation have been declared civil servants in order to allow them the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal under the Services Tribunal Act, 1973, for redressal of their grievances.
2. 818. The Government further confirms the information provided by the complainant and states that the Pakistan International Airline Pilot’s Association (PALPA), the People’s Unity of PIA Employees and Air League of PIA Employees challenged the executive order and subsequent administrative orders before the High Court of Sindh at Karachi. The High Court, through its judgement of 29 March 2002, dismissed the petitions of the two latter unions. Finally, the Government informs that the two unions have lodged appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan which, at the moment, are still pending.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 819. The Committee notes that the complainant in this case refers to the adoption of Chief Executive Order No. 6 of 2001, providing for the suspension of trade unions in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) and of existing collective agreements and declaring employees of the PIAC to be civil servants, therefore excluding PIAC workers from industrial relations legislation (Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, concerning the terms and conditions of employment). The Committee further notes that under the executive order, Administrative Orders Nos. 14, 18 and 17, which changed the terms and conditions of employment of airline employees, were passed by the management of PIAC. In addition, according to the complainant, facilities conferred to trade union office bearers were withdrawn. The Pakistan International Airline Pilot’s Association (PALPA), the People’s Unity of PIA Employees and Air League of PIA Employees challenged the executive order and subsequent administrative orders before the High Court of Sindh at Karachi. The first case was adjourned on 20 September 2001 and the petitions of the two latter unions were dismissed. Finally, the complainant alleges that in, October 2002, the managing director of PIAC issued Administrative Order No. 25 providing for discontinuation of membership in associations of management staff.
2. 820. The Committee notes the Government’s statement to the effect that the promulgation of Chief Executive Order No. 6 was considered necessary in view of the undue influence of registered trade unions transforming into collective bargaining agents (CBA), such as misappropriation of public funds, on various facilities extended to office bearers of CBA and political interference in the discipline as well as in the operation of the airline. The Government further states that the legality of the order was confirmed by the High Court. It indicates further that the complainant had lodged an appeal against this decision to the Supreme Court. The Government states that the employees of the corporation have been declared civil servants in order to allow them the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal under the Services Tribunal Act, 1973, for redressal of their grievances. No observation as to the newly passed Administrative Order No. 25 was made by the Government.
3. 821. The Committee recalls that the trade union situation of PIAC workers was previously examined on two occasions, in Case No. 1075 [218th Report, paras. 273-285, approved by the Governing Body at its 221st Session, November 1982] and in Case No. 1332 [244th Report, paras. 69-76, approved by the Governing Body at its 233rd Session, May-June 1986]. The Committee also observes that the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations have previously criticized, in the context of Pakistan’s application of Convention No. 87, the ban that was previously imposed on trade union activities in PIAC.
4. 822. The Committee notes that the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 1969 was repealed and replaced, in October 2002, by the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 2002. The Committee also notes that in Case No. 2229, the complainant stated that the new IRO did not mention the lifting of a ban on suspension of trade union rights in PIAC but that the Government stated to the contrary that the new legislation covered PIAC workers [330th Report, paras. 924 and 934, approved by the Governing Body at its 286th Session, March 2003]. The Committee notes, however, that in the present case, the Government confirms the suspension of trade union rights in PIAC. In light of the above, the Committee must express its regret that the employees of PIAC are once again denied the possibility of exercising their trade union rights. In its previous cases, the Committee considered similar arguments put forward by the Government justifying such denial, but reached the conclusion that restrictions on the trade union activity of these workers constituted an infringement of freedom of association. The Committee notes that in the present case, the chief executive order had the following implications: suspension of trade unions and collective agreements in PIAC; and withdrawal of facilities conferred to trade union office bearers.
5. 823. The Committee recalls that the terms of Articles 2 and 3 of Convention No. 87 provide that workers without distinction whatsoever (including public servants), shall have the right to join organizations of their own choosing and that these organizations shall be able to exercise their activities in full freedom. As concerns Administrative Order No. 25, which restricts the right to organize of managerial staff, although their right to belong to the same unions as other workers could be restricted, such workers should have the right to form their own associations to defend their interests [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 231].
6. 824. As concerns the suspension of collective agreements and their replacement with Administrative Orders Nos. 14, 18 and 17 issued by the PIAC management, the Committee recalls that the suspension – without the agreement of the parties – of collective agreements freely entered into by the parties violates the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining established in Article 4 of Convention No. 98. A legal provision, which allows the employer to modify unilaterally the content of signed collective agreements, is contrary to the principles of collective bargaining [see Digest, op. cit., paras. 848 and 876].
7. 825. In view of the above, the Committee urges the Government to repeal Chief Executive Order No. 6 and to take the necessary measures in order to repeal Administrative Orders Nos. 14, 17, 18 and 25 so as to restore full trade union rights to the workers concerned.
8. 826. As concerns the allegation of withdrawal of facilities conferred on trade union office bearers, the Committee recalls that workers’ representatives should be afforded the necessary facilities for carrying out their representative functions. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures so as to ensure that trade union office bearers enjoy such facilities as may be necessary for the proper exercise of their functions.
9. 827. The Committee draws the attention of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations to the legislative aspects of the case. It further requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken to restore full trade union rights to PIAC workers.