Interim Report - REPORT_NO354, June 2009

1. 885. The Committee last examined this case on its merits at its June 2008 session, where it issued an interim report approved by the Governing Body at its 299th Session [see 350th Report, paras 1003–1107].
2. 886. The Government provided its observations in a communication dated 16 March 2009.
3. 887. The Islamic Republic of Iran has not ratified either the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), or the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. Previous examination of the case

1. 888. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee made the following recommendations [see 350th Report, para. 1107]:
   • (a) While noting the Government’s latest statement of its ongoing efforts to amend the labour legislation, the Committee is bound once again to urge the Government to deploy all efforts as a matter of urgency so as to allow for trade union pluralism and requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in this regard. The Committee further reminds the Government once again of the availability of the technical assistance of the Office and urges the Government, in the meantime, to take all measures to ensure that trade unions can be formed and function without hindrance, including through the de facto recognition of the union.
   • (b) The Committee requests the Government to ensure that a full and independent investigation is carried out into the allegations of various types of workplace harassment during the period of the union’s founding from March to June 2005, and to transmit a detailed report in this regard. It further requests the Government, in the light of the information revealed by the investigation, to take the necessary measures to ensure that all employees at the company are effectively protected against any form of discrimination related to their trade union membership or their trade union activities.
   • (c) The Committee requests the Government to transmit copies of the Dispute Settlement Board’s rulings concerning the 43 workers whose contracts were terminated and to take the necessary measures for their reinstatement with back wages should it be found that they were dismissed for their legitimate trade union activity. The Committee also urges the Government to undertake a full and independent inquiry into the allegations of dismissals during the months of February and June 2007, and take the necessary measures to ensure that all trade unionists who have not yet been reinstated and were found to have been the subject of anti-union discrimination are fully reinstated in their previous positions without loss of pay. Finally, it requests the Government to keep it informed of the employment status of all those workers named in the complaint and indicate, for those who have not been reinstated, the precise reasons for their dismissal and the status of any reconsideration of their employment relationship.
   • (d) The Committee once again urges the Government to institute a full and independent judicial inquiry immediately into the attacks on union meetings held in March and June 2005, in order to clarify the facts, determine responsibilities, prosecute and punish those responsible and thus prevent the repetition of such acts. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments, as well as of any court judgements rendered in this regard.
   • (e) The Committee urges the Government to immediately institute an independent inquiry into the allegations of ill-treatment suffered by Mr Osanloo during his period of detention from 22 December 2005 to 9 August 2006, with a view to fully clarifying the facts, determining responsibility, punishing those responsible, compensating Mr Osanloo for any damages suffered and preventing the repetition of such acts.
   • (f) The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure Mr Osanloo’s immediate release and the dropping of any remaining charges. Further noting the disparity between the complainant’s allegations and the Government’s response concerning Mr Osanloo’s health, the Committee also requests the Government to provide full particulars as to his current state of health and to ensure that he is provided all necessary medical attention as a matter of urgency.
   • (g) The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure Mr Madadi’s immediate release and the dropping of any remaining charges brought against him. Additionally, the Committee once again urges the Government to provide full, detailed and precise information respecting his trial, including copies of the court judgement, and to conduct an independent inquiry into the allegations of ill-treatment to which he has been subjected while in detention and, if they are found to be true, to compensate him for any damage suffered and to ensure that he is immediately provided any necessary medical treatment.
   • (h) The Committee urges the Government to once again take the necessary measures without delay to ensure that trade unionists may exercise their freedom of association rights, including the right to peaceful assembly, without fear of sanction by the authorities, and to ensure in particular that trade unionists are not arrested or detained and that charges are not brought against them for engaging in legitimate trade union activities. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that the charges against the following union members are immediately dropped: Ata Babakhani, Naser Golami, Reza Tarazi, Golamreza Golamhoseini, Golamreza Mirzaee, Ali Zad Hosein, Hasan Karimi, Mr Seyed Davoud Razavi, Yaghob Salimi, Ebrahim Noroozi Gohari, Homayoun Jaberi, Saeed Torabian, Abbas Najand Koodaki and Hayat Gheibi and that if any of these trade unionists are currently being detained that they be immediately released. The Committee further requests the Government to provide any court judgements rendered in respect of these workers.
   • (i) The Committee calls the Governing Body’s special attention to the grave situation relating to the trade union climate in the Islamic Republic of Iran and requests the Government to accept a direct contacts mission in respect of the matters raised in the present case and in the other cases concerning the Islamic Republic of Iran pending before the Committee.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 889. In its communication of 16 March 2009 the Government states that, as concerns allowing multiple trade unions and recognizing their legal rights, it is legally obliged to indiscriminately implement the current laws and regulations. As regards the election of trade unions, the Government’s role is only to advise other relevant bodies on the due observance of election procedures, including examining the validity of the credentials of the candidates and the electorate. In this role, it is obliged to remain impartial at all times. As implied in the wording and spirit of the relevant law and regulations, the Government’s supervision may not in any manner be interpreted as intervention in the internal affairs of the respective associations or as barring or limiting their freedom of association. The Government alleges that the incontrovertible ruling of the State Administrative Justice Tribunal exonerating the Government of the charges of intervention in the election of the employers’ confederation in November 2009 is the best token of its commitment to the principle of non-intervention and impartiality in the affairs of the social partners’ associations.
2. 890. With respect to the Committee’s recommendation concerning legislative amendments to ensure trade union multiplicity, the Government indicates generally that amending the Labour Law of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been one of the most serious challenges of the Government within the last 20 years. It is a challenge bound up with a complicated and multifaceted social, political and parliamentary procedure. ILO technical cooperation was requested to ensure that amendments would be made in accordance with Conventions Nos 87 and 98. ILO experts were also invited to promote the principles of collective bargaining in the Islamic Republic of Iran by teaching both workers’ and employers’ organizations. On some occasions drafts of possible amendments to the Labour Law on controversial points were either assisted by ILO experts or brought to their attention for eventual observations or corrections. The Government adds that a draft amendment to the Labour Law is presently under technical examination in the competent government commission for final approval.
3. 891. The Government states that paragraph 41 of article 101 of the Fourth National Development Plan clearly calls for the amendment of labour laws, social security laws, and regulations to incorporate fundamental rights at work and comply with relevant ILO Conventions and instruments, as well as to promote social dialogue in industrial relations. To fulfil the objectives of article 101, and particularly the promotion of freedom of association and right to collective bargaining, a draft amendment was prepared and formulated jointly by the social partners to replace articles 7, 21, 24, 27, 41, 96, 112, 119, 191 and 192 of the current Labour Law. The request for amendments was officially submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers on 30 November 2006. The Secretary of Economic Commission of the Cabinet, upon examination of the submitted text of the proposed amendments to be made to the Labour Law, forwarded the Cabinet’s observations on these proposed amendments to the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MLSA) on 5 August 2007.
4. 892. A series of tripartite and specialized meetings subsequently resulted in a finalized version of the Labour Law amendments, entitled the Bill on the Formulation of Temporary Labour Contracts and the Creation of New Employment (the amendments are attached to the Government’s reply). According to the Government, the Bill mainly focuses on proposed policies on insurance, social security, short-term temporary contracts and contracting, as well as amendments to Chapter VI of the Labour Law. The Government states that in drafting the Bill it gave due care to the considerations and interventions of the ILO – in particular those of the Committee. Under the proposed Bill, and in contrast to the existing law, government permission is not required to establish a trade union. Additionally the purpose of registering workers’ and employers’ associations is merely to help the Government to fulfil its obligation to introduce the most representative workers’ and employers’ delegates to the International Labour Conference (ILC) and other relevant tripartite bodies, such as the High Labour Councils.
5. 893. The Government further indicates that, on the recommendation of the social partners and in particular the employers, on 16 May 2007 Parliament approved the “Plan on the removal of obstacles in production and industrial investment”, which has now been implemented. Articles 9 and 10 of the Plan also call for amendments to some of the articles of the existing Labour Law. Parliament’s Economic Commission is addressing another proposal, submitted by the Ministry of Industry on 24 January 2008, which calls for “Revisiting and amending the labour and social security laws for optimizing production costs.” (The proposal was attached to the Government’s reply.)
6. 894. The Government states that it is willing to receive further ILO technical assistance as regards the legislative amendments. As regards the Committee’s request for full and independent investigations into the allegations of workplace harassment, according to the Government, conducting independent investigations falls within the mandate of the judiciary only. The Government notes that it also informally examines any such charges and maintains that the violation of fundamental rights and alleged maltreatment of the suspects at the time of the arrest or while in custody or detention must be addressed immediately by independent investigators. The Government states that the MLSA has requested an autonomous review by the State General Inspection Organization (SGIO) as well as the Headquarters for the Protection of Human Rights (Headquarters) and has required them to advise the Government of their findings. According to the Government, the Headquarters is the single biggest body in the Islamic Republic of Iran for the protection of human rights and is very strict in ensuring the observance of and respect for citizens and their fundamental rights. The Government adds that the Headquarters is comprised of representatives from the legislative, administrative and judiciary bodies; representatives of the police and disciplinary forces attend meetings addressing any alleged violation of human rights by different bodies or government organizations. The Government further states that the complainants may lodge a complaint with the SGIO, an independent supervisory and monitoring body that examines public bodies to ensure proper functioning and correct implementation of legal provisions and receives complaints of mistreatment by police or other disciplinary forces.
7. 895. Regarding the Committee’s request concerning the 43 workers whose contracts were terminated, the Government provided information on the rulings of the Dispute Settlement Boards of the Tehran’s province and the Administrative Justice Tribunal for the dismissed workers of the Sherkat Vahed Autobusrani Tehran va Homeh (SVATH). The Government explains that both the Board of First Instance and Dispute Settlement Board are tripartite and any decision or ruling to dismiss a worker must be supported by the union or Islamic Labour Council representative. The District Dispute Settlement Board hears complaints of dismissals that did not follow proper procedure; dismissals that do not follow correct procedure are not binding. A worker may contest the Dispute Settlement Board or Board of the First Instance ruling before the Administrative Justice Tribunal, which may quash any ruling by the Boards and, if it does so, then the Dispute Settlement Board will hear the case anew. Article 27 of the Labour Law stipulates that:
   • … if, upon delivery of written notifications as to the negligence in the due performance of an assigned work or violation of respective disciplinary codes of the workshop, a worker continues his faulty practice, the employer may dismiss him after having obtained the approval of the members of the Islamic Labour Council of the related enterprise. If such council does not exist the existing trade union is mandated to approve the dismissal. Under any situation, the employer, however, is obliged to pay to the dismissed worker, in addition to his legal dues, wages and benefits in arrears, also for at least one month’s salary for each of his years of employment at the enterprise.
   • In either of the above cases, if the conflicting parties do not reach an agreement on dismissal, the case may be referred to the Board of the First Instance. If the latter fails to address the case properly, it may then be referred to the Dispute Settlement Board. In the meantime the employment contact is suspended. In enterprises or workshops that are not subject to the Labour Law and where Islamic labour councils or workers’ representations do not exist, the final ruling of the tripartite Board of First Instance is required for the cancellation of an employment contract (subject to article 185 of the Labour Law).
8. 896. The Government provides copies of the rulings of the disciplinary committees, together with Dispute Settlement Board and State Administrative Tribunal verdicts.
   • Rulings of Tehran’s Dispute Settlement Board
9. 897. The Government states that the Tehran Dispute Settlement Board ruled for the reinstatement of Masoud Fouroghi Nejad, Homayon Jaberi, Hassan Saiedi, Gholamreza Hassani, Gholamreza Mirzaie, Hamid Reza Rezaifard, Asghar Mashadi, Mohammad Sadegh Khandan, Yousef Moradi, Hassan Mohammadi, Gholamreza Khoshmaram and Mahmood Hajiri. The Board further ruled that their dismissals did not comply with the provisions of article 27 of the Labour Law and therefore they should be duly compensated for the lay-off period and should receive the accrued salary and benefits.
   • Approval of dismissal for the absence of an amicable and collaborative employment environment
10. 898. Tehran’s Dispute Settlement Board upheld the dismissals of Hassan Karimi, Ali Akbar Pirhadi, Davoud Nourozi, Mohammad Ebrahim, Nourozi Gohari, Soltan ali Shekari Seyed Biglou, Syed Reza Nematipour, Hadi Kabiri, Ataollah Babakhani, Hossein Karimi, Hassan Mohammadi and Amir Takhiri. The Board found the dismissals violated article 27 of the Labour Law but given the absence of an amicable and collaborative employment environment between the workers and the employer and noting that the dismissal was beyond the workers’ will, the Board ordered reimbursement of all pending wages, benefits, compensation years of employment, etc., and entitled them to the unemployment fund as a source of revenue until they find new jobs.
    • Dismissals in conformity with article 27 of the Labour Law
11. 899. The Board concluded that the dismissals of Golamreza Fazeli, Gholamreza Khani, Ali Hosseinzadehe, Vahab Mohamadi, Yaghob Salimi, Seyed Mansour Hayat Ghaybi, Ebrahim Madadi, Nasser Gholam, Saied Torabian, Syed Davod Razavi and Abass Najan Kodaki were carried out in conformity with article 27 of the Labour Law; therefore the Board upheld the dismissals and ordered the employer to settle all the workers’ legal dues, wages and benefits.
    • Rulings of the State Administrative Tribunal and referrals back to the Dispute Settlement Board
12. 900. The Government states that the following workers referred their final dismissal rulings by the Dispute Settlement Board to the State Administrative Tribunal: Ebrahim Madadi, Saied Torabian, Seyed Mansour Ghaybi, Mohammad Ebrahim Nourouzi Gohari, Amir Takhiri, Seyed Reza Nemati Pour, Yaghob Salimi, Gholamreza Fazeli, Safar Alirad, Gholamreza Khanin and Ali Akbar Pirdi. The Tribunal upheld only Mr Ebrahim Madadi’s complaint; it overturned his dismissal and referred his case to a parallel Dispute Settlement Board. The Government notes that Mr Hossein Dehghan’s appeal concerned his premature retirement; the Board of First Instance of the MLSA Directorate of Shar Ray dated 1386/3/29 (20 July 2007) concluded the case did not fall in the Dispute Settlement Board’s jurisdiction.
13. 901. On the Committee’s request for an independent investigation into the attacks on union meetings in March and June 2005, the Government affirms that it seriously examined any such charges and maintains that the alleged mistreatment or unfair proceedings must be addressed immediately by independent bodies but that the incident was the result of trade union internal clashes. The Government states that it and the judiciary, as impartial bodies, may not, therefore, intervene on behalf of either party to the contentions unless such a request is deposited with the judiciary. The complainants may, therefore, call for the implementation of article 615 of the Islamic Penal Code which calls for proportionate punishment against all parties to a fight; article 65, paragraph 65 of the Islamic Penal Code stipulates that any survey or examination of the legal case is subject to the complaint of the complainant. In respect of the attacks by Workers’ House affiliates, the Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company (the union) had in fact lodged an official complaint with the General Prosecutor of Tehran. Also, union board member Ebrahim Nourouzi Gohari had filed a complaint with the General Prosecutor of the judicial organization of the military forces against the arresting officers for the use of excessive force; the first hearing of Gohari’s action was held and the court ruled for the examination of the alleged physical injuries. The Government pledges to pursue a more speedy examination by the independent judiciary investigation team.
14. 902. Regarding the Committee’s request for an independent investigation addressing the allegations of ill-treatment suffered by Mr Osanloo, the Government states that Mr Osanloo or his lawyers may lodge a new complaint with the judiciary for infringement of his citizen and human rights. The latter organization has been very strict in addressing such cases, the Government alleges, and has recently severely penalized some of the perpetrators of the alleged violations. The Government also alleges that the Bill on the Protection of the Citizenry Rights is an indication that violation of the rights of the citizen is not tolerable and the judiciary is gravely concerned to protect against such violations. The Bill was attached to the Government’s reply.
15. 903. Regarding the Committee’s request for Mr Osanloo’s full particulars as to his current state of health and urgent provision of all necessary medical attention, the Government claims Mr Osanloo had constant access to the best medical services available in the Islamic Republic of Iran when necessary. The Government further claims that, while he was in detention, his eye received intensive care and he received eye surgery from the best eye surgeons in the most advanced hospitals of the Islamic Republic of Iran; he also indiscriminately had a thorough physical examination, where appropriate. A 5 November 2007 memorandum from the director of Evin prison indicating that Mr Osanloo had received medical treatment since his transfer to Evin prison was attached to the Government’s reply. The Government further states that it would willingly examine any possible cases of alleged violations of his civil and human rights in detention and would immediately bring any violations to the attention of the respective authorities for corrective measures.
16. 904. As regards the Committee’s request for Mr Osanloo’s immediate release and the dropping of charges against him, the Government states that it is seriously seeking legal avenues for his pardon and release. The Government adds that it strongly believes that workers should not be confined behind bars and should fulfil their share in the development and prosperity of the society. The Government alleges that maintaining imprisonment is not the most appropriate punishment, and that the judiciary is also seriously looking into replacing imprisonment with another reasonable substitute.
17. 905. On the immediate release of Mr Madadi and withdrawal of the charges against him, the Government states that it is entirely in the judiciary’s mandate to alter court rulings, drop charges, or exonerate any accused or sentenced person. The Government states it may not in any manner meddle with the affairs and rulings of the judiciary. The Government adds Mr Osanloo has every right to resort to the mechanism envisaged in the law to alter the court’s decision. In compliance with the Committee’s recommendation, however, the MLSA has officially sought the pardon of Mr Osanloo and Mr Madadi and is following the case seriously with the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice.
18. 906. As concerns the right of workers to exercise their right to peaceful assembly, the Government states that the MLSA has drafted a code of practice on the management and control of trade union and labour-related protests, in order to reduce any error and misconception in the treatment by the disciplinary forces of such events, and in compliance with the recommendation of the Committee. Among other things, the code aims at advising and briefing the disciplinary and security forces on the principle of non-violence in their treatment of different forms of labour-related and trade union protests. To give the code more legal power and legitimacy, it has been officially submitted for approval to the Supreme National Security Council and States Security Council by the MLSA.
19. 907. The Government provides a translated copy of the draft code, as well as a copy of cover letters from the MLSA addressed to the secretariat of the Supreme National Security Council and to the head of the Ministry of the Interior, presenting the draft code and asking that it be considered for “national security services”.
20. 908. The MLSA embarked on an extensive briefing of its general directors and motivated them to introduce the code to other pertinent authorities. The Government provides with its reply a copy of a correspondence dated 5 March 2007, which it states is from its director-general in Fars Province to the general governor, through which the former officially introduces the code and asks for its due observance and implementation.
21. 909. On the Committee’s request that the Government receive a technical mission, the Government states that many of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s industrial relations and labour problems may best be addressed through constructive interactions with the ILO technical teams and it regards such encounters as constructive steps to implementing Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The Government recalls the ILO technical mission to the Islamic Republic of Iran in February 2008, in which the ILO representative saw social partners’ associations and ranking government officials and learned about the great interest of the Parliament to seriously examine the ratification of Conventions Nos 87 and 98. The Government, therefore, enthusiastically looks forward to receiving such missions in the future as well and pledges to do its utmost to ensure the fulfilment of their mission objectives. The Government states that it will soon advise the Committee of the best timetable for a technical mission and it is confident that the constructive measures adopted by the Government and its social partners, such as attempts to amend the Labour Law and relevant regulations as well as initiatives to prepare the ground for the ratification of Convention No. 87, may have paved the way for a more constructive mission.
22. 910. Finally, as concerns the 3 December 2006 arrest of Seyed Davoud Razavi, Abdolreza Tarazi, and Golamreza Golam Hosseini, the Government states that their arrest was due to their participation in an unlawful assembly held by dissident groups, and bore no relation with their trade union activities.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 911. The Committee recalls that the present case concerns acts of harassment against members of the union, including: demotions, transfers, and suspensions without pay of union members; acts of violence against trade unionists; and numerous instances of the arrest and detention of trade union leaders and members.
2. 912. The Committee recalls that it had previously urged the Government to deploy all efforts as a matter of urgency to amend the labour legislation so as to bring it into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association, particularly as concerns the right of workers and employers to form and join the organization of their own choosing, regardless of the pre-existence of another type of representation in the same workplace, sector or at national level. In this regard the Committee takes note of the Government’s indications on the ongoing reforms to the labour legislation. In particular, the Committee notes with interest the proposed amendments to the Labour Law contained in the draft Bill on the Formulation of Temporary Labour Contracts and the Creation of New Employment. The proposed amendment to article 131 of the Labour Law would appear to permit trade union multiplicity by providing for the right of workers to “establish guild societies and/or elect work representatives” at the workplace level, and note 1 of the proposed amendment to article 131 further states that in case two workers’ associations exist in a workplace, the “most representative association” shall be considered as the legal workers’ representative. The Committee also notes that note 4 of the proposed amendment to article 131 appears to allow for organizational multiplicity at the national level, in providing that workers’ representatives to various councils shall be elected by the “most representative high workers’ organization”. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress made in adopting these amendments and firmly expects that the legislation will be brought into conformity with freedom of association principles in the very near future.
3. 913. The Committee recalls that it had also urged the Government to take all measures to ensure that trade unions can be formed and function without hindrance pending the passage of new legislation, including through the de facto recognition of the union – the Sandikaye Kargarane Sherkate Vahed Otobosrani Tehran va Hoomeh (Independent Syndicate of Workers of Tehran Bus Company) (SVATH). In this regard, the Committee deeply regrets that the Government confines itself to reiterating that it is obliged to apply the laws and regulations impartially and indiscriminately – and has once again failed to provide any indication that it has taken effective measures to ensure that workers and employers may exercise their fundamental rights to freedom of association without sanction. The Committee once again urges the Government to deploy all efforts as a matter of urgency so as to allow for trade union pluralism, including through the de facto recognition of the SVATH pending the introduction of the legislative reforms.
4. 914. With respect to its previous request for a full and independent investigation into the allegations of workplace harassment during the period of the union’s founding, from March to June 2005, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MLSA) has requested an autonomous review by the State General Inspection Organization (SGIO) as well as by the Headquarters for the Protection of Human Rights, and has required them to advise the Government of their findings. The Committee requests the Government to transmit a detailed report of those bodies’ findings as soon as they are produced and once again requests the Government, in the light of the information revealed by these investigations, to take the necessary measures to ensure that all employees at the company are effectively protected against any form of discrimination related to their trade union membership or their trade union activities.
5. 915. The Committee recalls that it had previously requested copies of the Dispute Settlement Board’s rulings concerning the 43 workers whose contracts were terminated between March to June 2005 and in March 2006. It had also urged the Government to undertake a full and independent inquiry into the allegations of dismissals during the months of February and June 2007. In this connection, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Tehran Dispute Settlement Board ordered the reinstatement of 12 workers, and ordered compensation – including the payment of wages and benefits in arrears – without reinstatement in the case of 13 others, due to the absence of an “amicable and collaborative employment environment” between the workers and the employer. The Tehran Dispute Settlement Board also upheld the dismissals of 11 trade unionists dismissed in February 2007; several of these individuals appealed the Board’s rulings to the State Administrative Tribunal, which upheld all of the decisions except that relating to Ebrahim Madadi, which was overturned and referred to a parallel dispute settlement board.
6. 916. The Committee notes that, of the rulings provided by the Government, three are translated into English: a ruling of the Dispute Settlement Board for the reinstatement and payment of compensation to Masoud Foroghi Nejad, and rulings of the Labour Disciplinary Committee relating to Mansour Hayat Gheibi and Gholamreza Fazeli, respectively, in which the latter were found to have been dismissed with cause on grounds inter alia of obstruction, spreading baseless rumours, participation in illegal sit-ins and demonstrations, exerting pressure to seek illegal advantages, inciting others to achieve illegal objectives, and disrupting the discipline of the workplace. The Committee observes, furthermore, that the rulings are brief, one-page summaries that do not contain the material facts for the Committee to determine whether the individuals concerned were dismissed for reasons of anti-union discrimination. The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the 13 trade unionists found to have been wrongfully dismissed by the Tehran Dispute Settlement Board – and all other trade unionists who have not yet been reinstated and were found to have been the subject of anti-union discrimination – are fully reinstated in their positions without loss of pay. It further requests to be kept informed of the case concerning Mr Madadi, which was referred by the State Administrative Tribunal to a parallel dispute settlement board.
7. 917. As concerns its previous request that the Government immediately institute a full and independent judicial inquiry into the attacks on union meetings in May and June 2005, the Committee deeply regrets that the Government merely reiterates that the union had filed a complaint with the General Prosecutor of Tehran, while pledging to pursue a speedier examination of the case by the independent judiciary investigation team. Recalling that it had previously regretted that no judgement had yet been rendered in this case [see 350th Report, para. 1093], which concerns acts which now took place four years ago, the Committee is bound to deplore the lack of progress in respect of this serious matter. In light of the gravity of these allegations, the Committee once again urges the Government to institute a full and independent judicial inquiry immediately into these attacks, in order to clarify the facts, determine responsibilities, prosecute and punish those responsible and thus prevent the repetition of such acts. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard, including a copy of the court’s judgement once it is handed down.
8. 918. With respect to its previous recommendation for an independent inquiry into the allegations of ill-treatment suffered by Mr Osanloo during his period of detention from 22 December 2005 to 9 August 2006, the Committee deeply regrets that the Government indicates only that Mr Osanloo may lodge a complaint with the judiciary for infringements of his civil rights. Recalling that it had previously concluded that Mr Osanloo’s detention from 22 December 2005 to 9 August 2006 and the treatment received during this period constitute not only interference with his trade union activities, but a grave violation of his civil liberties as well [see 350th Report, para. 1097], and observing the importance which the Government itself places on the rapid institution of independent investigations, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the necessary independent investigation is carried out in this regard as a matter of urgency.
9. 919. As concerns its previous recommendation that the Government ensure Mr Osanloo’s immediate release from prison, provide full particulars as to his state of health and ensure that he is provided all necessary medical attention, the Committee notes the director of Evin prison’s memorandum of 5 November 2007 provided by the Government, which indicates that Mr Osanloo had received regular treatment since his transfer to Evin prison, including three outside visits to medical clinics. The Government further states that Mr Osanloo was given access to the best medical services available in the Islamic Republic of Iran, including treatment from the nation’s best eye surgeons. The Committee, while noting the efforts which the Government states it is making for Mr Osanloo’s release, must once again urge the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure his immediate release and the dropping of any charges. As for the allegations concerning the lack of proper medical attention, the Committee requests the Government to provide full particulars as to the current state of Mr Osanloo’s health.
10. 920. The Committee had previously urged the Government to ensure Ebrahim Madadi’s immediate release and the dropping of any remaining charges brought against him. It had additionally urged the Government to provide full, detailed and precise information respecting his trial, including copies of the court judgement, and to conduct an independent inquiry into the allegations of ill-treatment to which he had been subjected while in detention. The Committee regrets that the Government, while stating that it was seeking a pardon for Mr Madadi and following the case with the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice, has failed to indicate any measures relating to Mr Madadi’s release or provide any information concerning his case, including the Revolutionary Court’s judgement of October 2007 that found him guilty of acting against national security. It furthermore deplores that the Government has not provided any information respecting the allegations of Mr Madadi’s mistreatment during his period of detention. Recalling that in that decision the Revolutionary Court had sentenced Mr Madadi to a two-year prison term, the Committee further deplores that in spite of its previous recommendation Mr Madadi will have completed his sentence in October of this year. The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure Mr Madadi’s immediate release. Deeply regretting that the Government has not provided any indications concerning the allegations of ill-treatment to which he had been subjected while in detention, the Committee once again urges the Government to institute an independent investigation into this serious matter.
11. 921. Previously the Committee, recalling that workers should enjoy the right to peaceful demonstration to defend their occupational interests, and that the police authorities should be given precise instructions so that, in cases where public order is not seriously threatened, people are not arrested simply for having organized or participated in a demonstration [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, paras 133 and 151], had urged the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to ensure that trade unionists may fully exercise their freedom of association rights, including the right to peaceful assembly, without fear of sanction by the authorities, and to ensure in particular that trade unionists are not arrested or detained and that charges are not brought against them for engaging in legitimate trade union activities. The Committee notes in this respect the draft code of practice on the management of trade union demonstrations and protests of the MLSA. The Committee further notes that the draft code of practice includes letters from the MLSA addressed to the secretariat of the Supreme National Security Council and to the head of the Ministry of the Interior, presenting the draft code and asking that it be considered for the “national security services”. The Government also provides a copy of a communication dated 5 March 2007 from Kernan Province (not Fars, as indicated by the Government) to the General Governor, through which the former officially introduces the code and asks for its due observance and implementation.
12. 922. The Committee notes the initiatives taken by the Government through the measures taken by the MLSA to draft and promote a code of practice on the management and control of labour-related and trade union protests and demonstrations. The Committee notes the introduction to the draft code, which emphasizes the role of good industrial relations, collective bargaining, and dispute resolution mechanisms as “necessary and indispensable tools” for workers and employers to achieve mutually acceptable solutions to labour disputes and for protecting workers’ rights and interests as well as ensuring the security and sustainability of enterprises. Some of the consequences of the failure to achieve mutually acceptable solutions to labour disputes are labour strikes, pickets, sit-ins, assemblies, and peaceful demonstrations, which are themselves “legitimate tools for workers to demonstrate the gravity of their situation”. What seems to have aggravated incidents in which worker protests have led to widespread social unrest and political disturbances is “the absence of a code of practice to help police and other disciplinary forces to distinguish” worker strikes and protests from potential social unrest and public disturbances. The present draft code, according to the Government, therefore represents a genuine attempt “to help disciplinary and security forces recognize the legitimacy of labour-related protests, demonstrations, sit-ins, etc., so as to distinguish them from other forms of social and political unrest and turmoil”. According to the Government, the code was thus prepared in the hope that it could ensure that the ground is laid “for workers to freely exercise their legitimate rights of protest and strikes as stipulated under national and labour laws”.
13. 923. The Committee further notes from the draft code that:
    • – under section A, the MLSA is to introduce “relevant regulations”, while “defining the characteristics and scope of legitimate trade union rights and activities arising from the respective international labour standards”;
    • – section B provides, among other things, that “preventing trade union members from pursuing their causes by resorting to the security and intelligence forces and/or limiting their legitimate trade union activities, such as holding meetings and peaceful assemblies, is construed as a violation of the rights of workers”. The Ministry of Interior is therefore required to define “the criteria for holding peaceful demonstrations and assemblies”, as well as the “definitions and characteristics of what [the Government] considers to be unacceptable practices in holding demonstrations and assemblies”, about which trade unions are to be advised by the Government;
    • – under section C, the Ministry of Justice is required to formulate rules and regulations, “in respect of possible violations of relevant civil laws by protesters and/or workers on strike”. All relevant departments (police, security and other disciplinary forces) shall exercise self-restraint and refrain from resorting to disciplinary or security practices in dealing with workers’ collective industrial actions and trade union and labour-related protests and demonstrations;
    • – under section D, the approach of operating forces in controlling social disturbances and/or volatile and critical worker unrest is based on the principle of deployment of non-offensive anti-riot equipment and non-deployment of excessive force and firearms. Reference is made to “Security Council instructions for maintaining discipline and public security” but the content of those instructions is not specified;
    • – section E provides that, upon the occurrence of workers’ events the relevant authorities are first to contact the General Directorate of the MLSA in the related province to elicit the necessary background information concerning the incident and to seek its assistance in attempting an amicable settlement of the dispute by using all the tools and means at their disposal.
14. 924. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the progress made concerning the finalization of the draft code and its adoption and to provide full particulars on the matters referred to therein, including the rules, regulations, and criteria the various ministries are apparently required to formulate and introduce that govern the holding of demonstrations and assemblies. The Committee urges the Government to receive technical assistance from the ILO to finalize the draft code and in the formulation of the requisite rules and regulations referred to therein, so as to ensure that workers’ organizations may carry out peaceful demonstrations without fear of arrest, detention or indictment by the authorities for engaging in such activity, in accordance with the principles of freedom of association.
15. 925. The Committee had previously deplored the fact that several other trade unionists had been arrested, detained, and tried – or were awaiting trial – on the same charges for which Mr Osanloo and Mr Madadi were convicted, and had urged the Government to ensure that the charges were dropped against these union members, namely: Ata Babakhani, Naser Gholami, Abdolreza Tarazi, Golamreza Golam Hosseini, Gholamreza Mirzaee, Ali Zad Hosein, Hasan Karimi, Seyed Davoud Razavi, Yaghob Salimi, Ebrahim Noroozi Gohari, Homayoun Jaberi, Saeed Torabian, Abbas Najand Koodaki and Hayat Gheibi. It further urged the Government to ensure that if any of these trade unionists were still being detained that they be immediately released, and to provide any court judgements rendered in respect of these workers. The Committee deplores that the Government provides no information in this respect, other than to state that the 3 December 2006 arrest of Seyed Davoud Razavi, Abdolreza Tarazi and Golamreza Golam Hosseini was due to their participation in an unlawful assembly held by dissident groups, and bore no relation with their trade union activities. The Committee once again urges the Government to ensure that the charges against these union members are immediately dropped and that, if any of them are currently being detained, that they be immediately released. Furthermore the Committee once again urges the Government to provide any court judgements rendered in respect of these workers.
16. 926. Finally, in respect of its previous request for a direct contacts mission, the Committee welcomes the Government’s statement that such a mission would be viewed positively, in order to review the existing situation and provide guidelines for improvement where appropriate, and that it would soon advise the Committee of the best timetable for the visit. The Committee expects that the mission will be able to visit the country shortly and that it will be in a position to assist the Government in achieving significant results with respect to all the serious outstanding matters and, in particular, as regards the draft labour legislation and principles relating to trade union demonstrations referred to by the Government, as well as in relation to the trade unionists remaining in detention.