Interim Report - REPORT_NO359, March 2011

1. 684. At its 99th Session (June 2010), the International Labour Conference approved the proposal of the Credentials Committee – made in accordance with article 26bis, paragraph 6, of the Conference Standing Orders  – to refer the issues raised by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in its objection concerning the nomination of the Workers’ delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Committee on Freedom of Association.
2. 685. The issues raised by the ITUC are contained in a communication dated 3 June 2010.
3. 686. The Government forwarded information on the matters raised by the ITUC in communications dated 26 May and 9 June 2010 and provided further observations in a communication dated 8 November 2010.
4. 687. 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. The complainant’s allegations and examination of the case by the Credentials Committee

1. 688. In its communication dated 3 June 2010, the ITUC raised an objection concerning the nomination of the Workers’ delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This objection, together with the information provided by the Government in communications dated 26 May and 9 June 2010, was examined by the Credentials Committee, as set out below:
   • …
   • 55. The Committee received an objection from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) concerning the nomination of the Workers’ delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The ITUC expressed surprise to see representatives from the Coordinating Centre of Workers’ Representatives in the delegation because, before the 98th Session (2009) of the Conference, it had never heard of this organization. After that session it heard nothing more of them until representatives were accredited to the 99th Session of the Conference. Furthermore, none of the independent workers’ groups, with whom the ITUC had contact, had heard of it. The ITUC contended that the law did not mention these sorts of centres; the Labour Code stipulated that either an Islamic labour council or a guild society could be established at a workplace and that the law strongly favoured labour councils. The national coordinating and leading centre of the Islamic labour councils was the Workers’ House, the “official” workers’ organization set up and backed by the authorities. In the view of the ITUC, where a council had been established no other form of representation was allowed. Workers’ House authorities claimed that over 1,000 labour councils had been established in the country; the ITUC alleged that the councils were often formed by threats and pressure, promises, or forced or rigged elections. In addition, it alleged that the labour councils were formed as tools for controlling workers protests and demands and as the Government’s alternative and barrier to the workers’ efforts to organize. The ITUC contended that workers who try to organize independently were subjected to different forms of harassment, including violence, arrest, detention and prison sentences. It was surprising, therefore, that there was a new so-called workers’ organization which no one had heard of, particularly given the great dissatisfaction among workers against the already existing government-organized union. In view of the repression exacted against new independent workers’ organizations, the existing legal framework supporting the Islamic labour councils, and since none of the independent organizations in the Islamic Republic of Iran knew of the Coordinating Centre of Workers’ Representatives, the ITUC did not believe that it was a genuine workers’ organization. It added that, to its knowledge, all delegation members to the Conference had always been appointed by the Government and not the workers themselves. In view of these facts the ITUC considered that the nomination had not been made in accordance with article 3, paragraphs 1 and 5, of the ILO Constitution and it challenged the credentials of the Coordinating Centre of Workers’ Representatives.
   • 56. The Committee had also before it a written communication from the Government dated 26 May 2010, in which it was informed of the procedure followed for the nomination of the Iranian Workers’ delegation to the Conference. Representatives of the two major workers’ organizations in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the High Assembly of the Workers’ Representatives (HAWR) and the High Center for Islamic Labour Councils (HCILC) had been asked by a letter dated 30 March 2010 to provide the names of their representatives to the Ministry of Labour. The Head of the Workers’ House was invited to attend a meeting in the International Affairs Department of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs which was held on 12 April to discuss the manner in which the Workers’ delegation to the Conference would be designated. Although Mr Alirez Mahjoub, Head of the Workers’ Fraction of the Islamic Consultative Assembly was invited to accompany the delegation, he declined the invitation. The HAWR and the HCILC convened a meeting on 5 May 2010 and agreed to a rotation for the delegate and substitute delegate to the Conference; as the Workers’ delegate at the 98th Session (2009) was from the HCILC, it would be from the HAWR at this session. They also agreed to cooperate with each other and adopt joint approaches.
   • 57. In a written communication addressed to the Committee at its request, Mr Tavakol Habibzadeh, the Deputy Minister for International Relations and Overseas Employment, informed the Committee that the workers’ organizations may choose their representative using free will and discretion and upon consultation among themselves and that this had been the case between the two most representative workers’ organizations: the Islamic Labour Council (ILC) and the Coordinating Center of Workers’ Representatives (CCR). The Government undertook to make sure that the Workers’ delegation to the Conference and other relevant assemblies were inclusive of the representatives of workers from different trade industries as well as trade unions from the most represented workers’ organizations around the country. It submitted that the CCR was provided for in article 131, Chapter 6, note 4 of the Iranian Labour Law and was necessary given the existence of a fairly large informal sector and number of workplaces accommodating less than ten workers. The CCR was first established by a directive of the Government issued on 4 March 1993; at the moment it covered some 3,406 workplaces making it the single largest workers’ organization. Among its tasks was ensuring proper implementation of the provisions of the Labour Law and establishing the assembly of the CCR in order, inter alia, to elect the Iranian workers’ representatives attending ILO meetings. National law prohibited the formation of more than one organization of workers’ representatives per province. The CCR in each province was authorized to conclude collective bargaining agreements in compliance with the Labour Law. The formation of the High Council of the CCR had greatly helped the fulfilment of tripartism and social dialogue in the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly among the informal sectors and rural areas. According to reliable statistics, the CCR along with the ILC are among the most representative workers’ organizations in the Islamic Republic of Iran. They agreed to a rotation as to the delegate and substitute delegate. The Government had proposed amendments to Chapter 6 of the Labour Law on workers’ and employers’ organizations to create an enabling environment for the promotion of trade union activities and the proliferation of trade unions. The Government reaffirmed its commitment to the implementation of Convention No. 87 and to that end welcomed any technical cooperation which could be provided by the Office.
   • 58. The [Credentials] Committee regrets that it received the Government’s written communication 45 hours after the time-limit set by the Committee, thereby making it difficult for the Committee to fully examine the objection before it.
   • 59. In general, the Committee finds that the objection raises questions that go beyond those concerning exclusively the nomination of the Workers’ delegation to the Conference and may be better examined by the Committee of Freedom of Association. For example, it appears from the Government’s response that the law prohibits the formation of more than one organization of workers’ representatives in each province. The Committee also has doubts about the nature of the CCR as a genuine workers’ organization. It notes that according to the Government’s communication the CCR has among its tasks to ensure proper implementation of the provisions of the Labour Law and the communication mentions that the CCR has inspectors in each province, which seems to indicate that the CCR exercises public administration functions.
   • 60. The Committee recalls that article 3, paragraph 5, of the Constitution, requires consultation and agreement with the most representative workers’ organizations. This condition can only be satisfied if the organizations consulted are genuine organizations of workers, which are free and independent from the Government. In light of the above information, the Committee expresses doubts as to whether this condition is fulfilled in this case.
   • 61. The Committee unanimously considers that the objection before it raises issues which relate to violations of the principles of freedom of association which have not already been examined by the Committee on Freedom of Association of the Governing Body. It proposes that the Conference refer the question to that Committee, in accordance with article 26bis, paragraph 6, of the Conference Standing Orders.
   • 147. The Credentials Committee adopts this report unanimously. It submits it to the Conference in order that the Conference may take note of it and adopt the proposals contained in paragraphs 10, 61, and 75.
   • Geneva, 15 June 2010 
2. 689. The report and proposals of the Credentials Committee were approved by the International Labour Conference unanimously. 

B. The Government’s additional observations

1. 690. In its communication dated 5 November 2010, the Government provides its response to the issues raised by the Credentials Committee. The Government indicates that article 131, note 4, of the Labour Law of 1990 emphasizes the principle of pluralism and provides that pursuant to their own interests and preferences, workers can be represented by any of the three following bodies: an Islamic Labour Council, a trade union or workers’ delegates.  It further indicates that in accordance with the Labour Law, workers can establish their own trade union institutions at their own discretion and that workers’ representatives are democratically elected by direct election. The Government refers to article 136 of the Labour Law and indicates that all workers’ delegates to the ILO, courts of first instance, dispute settlement boards and other bodies are elected freely by the most representative workers’ organizations or workers’ representatives. The Government states that contrary to the ITUC’s contention, workers’ delegates to the 2010 Conference had been elected in accordance with the national rules and regulations and ILO standards, taking into account the observations of the Credentials Committee as to the need for the participation of the most representative workers’ organizations. The Government further indicates that the same procedure was followed to elect representatives to the 2009 Conference, without any objection being raised as to their credentials.
2. 691. The Government explains that the nomination of workers’ delegates was the outcome of a long-established, but less resorted to, customary legal process. Each of the six workers’ delegates have gone through the following four stages of election, registered by legal bodies: (1) workplace election in the presence and with the participation of the majority of workers of the relevant unit; (2) election at the provincial level in the presence and with the participation of the majority of workers’ representatives of various workplaces in the relevant province; (3) election of members of the Confederation of Trade Unions [sic] in the presence and with the participation of the majority of the trade unions in the provinces throughout the country; and (4) election to select representatives out of the members of the boards of directors of the Confederations of the Workers’ Trade Union [sic] in the presence and with the participation of the majority of members of the Boards of Directors of those organizations. The Government stresses that workers’ delegates whose credentials have been contested by the ITUC have been democratically elected by members of the High Assembly of the Workers’ Representatives (HAWR) and have been given credential letters. The workers’ delegates to the Conference have met with various ITUC and ILO officials. The Government also indicates that it recognizes them as their social partners.
3. 692. The Government indicates that the HAWR was established and registered on 16 August 2008, pursuant to article 131 of the Labour Law, following independent and free election by the founding board and members of the Board of Directors of the Assembly of Worker Representatives [sic] of different provinces of the country. Eleven members of the Board of Directors (six from the industrial sector and five from the professional sector) and their five substitutes (three from the industrial sector and two from the professional sector), as well as two inspectors and two substitutes were elected. The officers of the organizations are elected for four years. The HAWR has its own constitution consisting of four chapters, 41 articles and 53 notes and represents 3,600 professions and industry workplace units. They participate in such bodies as the Supreme Council of Labour, Supreme Council of Employment, Supreme Council of Social Security, Supreme Council of Technical Protection, various welfare committees, etc. Out of 30 provinces in the country, 22 provinces have registered boards of directors of worker representatives and more than 80 provincial elections have been held.
4. 693. Following the establishment of the HAWR, the Islamic workers’ councils [sic] have been disposed of and the Workers’ House no longer represents workers and has no trade union identity. The Government explains that the Workers’ House exercised both political and trade union activities and that the ILO had previously recommended to the Government to separate trade union activities from political and party activities and reinforce trade union pluralism. The Government further states that it has always supported workers’ and employers’ free and independent trade union structures and that at present, workers’ and employers’ leaders and representatives have also reached theoretical and intellectual maturity and their associations are pursuing a reforming trend. Workers have thus decided to disband the Workers’ House and established, instead, provincial and national general assemblies [sic].
5. 694. The Government is proud that, in collaboration with the social partners, it has been able to pave the way for the emergence of workers’ activities. Within one year, 1,000 workers’ councils have been established and registered. Moreover, from 2005 to 2009, the number of workers’ associations increased from 2,958 to 4,990 (69 per cent growth). The Government expresses its respect for the principle of pluralism of workers’ associations by profession and industry. Moreover, by calling on workers’ representatives to be involved in the labour law revision, the Government is trying to expand social dialogue and increase the number of collective agreements.
6. 695. The Government points out that all of the existing workers’ and employers’ associations are independent, having been formed based on free and independent election. It considers, however, that is has the right to establish the system of registration of such associations. The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs is the body responsible for the registration of workers’ and employers’ institutions. The obligation of registration does not negate the independence of trade union associations.
7. 696. The Government reiterates that the heads of boards of directors of the most representative national workers’ trade union associations had been asked by a letter dated 30 March 2010 to elect their representatives and to provide their names to the Ministry of Labour so that the latter could communicate them to the ILO. Based on joint minutes of the Head of the High Center for Islamic Labour Councils (HCILC) and the Head of the HAWR, names of six delegates were received on 5 May 2010. These names were submitted to the Credentials Committee. No delegate from the Workers’ House had been elected due to the non-trade union nature of such organizations. However, despite this free and independent decision of workers, Mr Mohammad Hamzei, Director of International Affairs Unit of the Workers’ House attended the session of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards.
8. 697. The Government indicates that it is ready to have full technical and professional collaboration with the ILO.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 698. The Committee notes that the present case was referred to it by the International Labour Conference upon a proposal of the Credentials Committee – made in accordance with article 26bis, paragraph 6, of the Conference Standing Orders – to refer the issues raised by the ITUC in its objection concerning the nomination of the Workers’ delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Committee on Freedom of Association. The Committee notes that the Credentials Committee considered that the objection raised questions that went beyond those concerning exclusively the nomination of the Workers’ delegation to the Conference. In particular, the Credentials Committee observed that it did not appear possible, under the national legislation, to form more than one organization of workers’ representatives in each province and further raised queries as to whether the Coordinating Center of Workers’ Representatives (CCR) could be considered as a genuine workers’ organization.
2. 699. While recalling that questions of representation at the International Labour Conference fall within the competence of the Conference Credentials Committee [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth edition, 2006, paras 6 and 14], the Committee will proceed with its examination of this case on the basis of article 26bis, paragraph 6, of the Standing Orders of the International Labour Conference and its mandate to review the freedom of association aspects raised by the Credentials Committee.
3. 700. With regard to the question of trade union pluralism referred to it, the Committee notes the observations provided by the Government, referring, in particular, to article 131 of the Labour Law. The Committee recalls in this respect that article 131, note 4, provides that “Workers of a unit may [be represented] only by one of the three: an Islamic Labour Council, a guild society or a workers’ representative”. While taking note of the Government’s statement that it respects trade union pluralism, the Committee recalls that it has considered the issue of organizational monopoly, as enshrined in article 131 of the Labour Law, on several occasions and concluded that the organizational monopoly required by the law appeared to be at the root of the freedom of association problems in the country [see Cases Nos 2508 and 2567]. The Committee recalls that in Case No. 2508, while the Government confirmed that the existing legal framework did not permit the existence of both an Islamic Labour Council and a union at the same enterprise, it expressed its intention to amend the Labour Law to address this issue [see para. 1190, 346th Report, Case No. 2508]. While in its subsequent report, the Committee noted with interest the proposed amendments to the Labour Law [see paras 912 and 946, 354th Report, Cases Nos 2508 and 2567, respectively], it appears that the abovementioned provision has not yet been amended.
4. 701. The Committee notes with concern that the new issues raised in this case relate to the genuine representation of workers by the CCR and High Assembly of Workers’ Representatives (HAWR). The Committee notes in this respect that the Credentials Committee had expressed doubts about the nature of the CCR as a genuine workers’ organization and had further noted that the CCR seemed to exercise public administration functions. The Committee recalls that the principle of trade union pluralism, which the Iranian Government has been called to ensure in law and in practice on many occasions, is grounded in the right of workers to come together and form organizations of their own choosing, independently and with structures which permit their members to elect their own officers, draw up and adopt their by-laws, organize their administration and activities and formulate their programmes without interference from the public authorities and in the defence of workers’ interests. Given the continuing legally binding force of article 131 of the Labour Law, it would appear that such a right has once again been usurped by another structure – namely the CCR and the HAWR.
5. 702. Moreover, the Committee wishes to recall the concerns it has expressed over the legal framework within which the Government supervises organization elections. It recalls, in particular, that it had previously noted with regret the Government’s indication that, until amendments were passed by Parliament, it was obliged to implement the laws providing for governmental supervision of organization elections – namely article 131 of the Labour Law and article 19 of the Council of Ministers’ Rules and Procedures on the Organization, Functions, Scope and Liabilities of Trade Unions [see para. 943, 354th Report, Case No. 2567].
6. 703. The Committee is deeply concerned at the apparent absence of workers’ organizations’ delegates, appointed in the full spirit of freedom of association, among the official delegation to the International Labour Conference. It further observes that the draft amendments provided within the framework of Case No. 2567 examined in the introduction of the Committee’s report would still appear to maintain a restrictive choice between being either represented by a workers’ guild or by a workers’ delegate; thus it would seem that the workplaces now being represented by workers’ representatives would not be able to form trade unions of their own choosing, either now or following the adoption of the proposed amendment. It therefore considers that it is a matter of urgency that the Government deploy all efforts for the rapid amendment of the labour legislation in a manner so as to bring it into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association, by ensuring that workers may freely come together – regardless of the existence of elected workers’ representatives or Islamic Labour Councils – without government interference, to form organizations of their own choosing. It requests the Government to provide information on the recent steps taken in this regard.
7. 704. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that it is ready to have full technical and professional collaboration with the ILO and expects that the Government will avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office with respect to all the freedom of association matters pending before it.