The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative and the discussion that followed on issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee welcomed the report of the ILO high-level tripartite mission and noted with deep concern that the Government has failed to make progress on the repeated and consistent conclusions of this Committee despite the substantial technical assistance and financial resources provided by donor countries.

Taking into account the discussion of the case, and taking into account the conclusions of the Committee of 2015, the Committee repeats it concerns and urges the Government to:

• ■ undertake amendments to the 2013 Labour Act to address the issues relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining identified by the Committee of Experts, paying particular attention to the priorities identified by the social partners;
• ■ ensure that the law governing the EPZs allows for full freedom of association, including the ability to form employers’ and workers’ organizations of their own choosing, and to allow workers’ organizations to associate with workers’ organizations outside of the EPZs;
• ■ investigate as a matter of urgency all acts of anti-union discrimination, ensure the reinstatement of those illegally dismissed, and impose fines or criminal sanctions (particularly in cases of violence against trade unionists) according to the law; and
• ■ ensure that applications for union registration are acted upon expeditiously and are not denied unless they fail to meet clear and objective criteria set forth in the law.

Further, we invite the Government to implement the recommendations of the 2016 high-level tripartite mission together with the social partners.

The Committee decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of the report.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the statements made by the Government representative and the discussion that ensued. The Committee noted that the outstanding issues raised by the Committee of Experts concerned numerous allegations of violence and reported harassment of trade unionists and trade union leaders and the absence of progress in investigations; delay in registration of new trade unions; the need to ensure freedom of association rights to workers in export processing zones (EPZs); and continued obstacles to the full exercise of freedom of association created by several provisions of the 2006 Bangladesh Labour Act.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government that two suspects have been identified in the trade union leader murder case. They are still at large but the case has been classified as a sensitive one to ensure regular monitoring and an expeditious trial. The Government stated that 182 complaints of unfair labour practices were received during the period between 1 January and 30 April 2015, 177 of which were settled and criminal cases filed with respect to five. A helpline for workers was established on 15 March 2015 and is expected to improve transparency and governance in dealing with complaints. The Government indicated that 7,495 trade unions and 172 federations were now registered, with a total of 450 trade unions in the ready-made garment sector, and an online registration system has been introduced to ease the registration process. A website has been developed for disseminating reports on registration and is being made more user-friendly. After adoption of the BLA amendments in 2013, the Government acknowledged that the major task incumbent on it was the formulation of the corresponding rules which has required time and several rounds of consultations. The rules, following discussion and consensus in the Tripartite Consultative Council, were now being sent to the Ministry of Law for vetting prior to publication as a Gazette notification. Similarly, the draft Bangladesh EPZ Labour Act was sent to the Ministry of Law for vetting. The Government was engaged in awareness and capacity building to ensure freedom of association through effective trade unionism to over 2,700 worker leaders since 2013. The Government concluded by expressing its appreciation for the constructive engagement of the ILO and development partners in promoting rights at work.

The Committee takes note that the rules to implement the 2013 Labour Act are now two years overdue, while also taking note of the information from the Government that the rules have been drafted and are expected to be enacted shortly. The Committee recalls that it has previously called on the Government to ensure that workers in EPZs are able to exercise freedom of association in law and in practice and once again calls on the Government to pass legislation which guarantees to workers in EPZs the rights protected by Convention No. 87. The Committee also takes note that the Committee of Experts regret that no further amendments have been made to the BLA. Finally, the Committee takes note of reports of anti-union discrimination, including acts of violence and dismissals.

Taking into consideration the discussion, the Committee urged the Government to:

• undertake amendments to the 2013 Labour Act to address the issues relating to freedom of association and collective bargaining identified by the ILO Committee of Experts, paying particular attention to the priorities identified by the social partners;
• ensure that the law governing the EPZs allows for full freedom of association, including to form trade unions and to associate with trade unions outside of the EPZs;
• investigate as a matter of urgency all acts of anti-union discrimination, ensure the reinstatement of those illegally dismissed, and impose fines or criminal sanctions (particularly in cases of violence against trade unionists) according to the law; and finally
• ensure that applications for union registration are acted upon expeditiously and are not denied unless they fail to meet clear and objective criteria set forth in the law.

The Committee urges the Government to accept a high-level tripartite mission this year to ensure compliance with the recommendations.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2013, Publication: 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Government provided the following written information.

The country was fully committed to complying with ILO principles to promote labour rights and trade union activities in Bangladesh. Bangladesh had so far ratified a total of 33 ILO Conventions, including seven fundamental Conventions. Regarding allegations of harassment of trade unionists and trade union leaders, notably in the garment sector, the Government was taking serious action on any violation of labour standards. To keep harmony and peace in society and for the welfare of industry as a whole, its law enforcement agencies did their duty as per the law of the land. There was no illegal threat or police harassment or arrest and detention of trade unionists and trade union leaders carried out by the law enforcement agencies and there had been no case of death under police custody or any illegal arrest. The victims, if any, were accused of their misdeeds and criminal activities, creating violence and crisis in the industrial sector, blocking roads and vandalizing factories which hampered the economic activities of the country to a huge extent. To make the situation normal, the law enforcement agencies took actions as per the law.

The aim of that action was not in any way to harass any trade union leader, to resist or to disrupt trade union activity in the country. The Government of Bangladesh strongly believed that freedom of association could be exercised in a situation that was free from violence or threat. It should be noted that no trade unionists had been detained for their activities. Regarding the registration of the Bangladesh Garments and Industrial Sramik Federation (BGIWF), the union was functioning without any obstacle. Due to allegations of violations of its constitution and unfair labour practices by the BGIWF, the Department of Labour, according to the provisions of the Bangladesh Labour Act, had filed a case in the Labour Court against the BGIWF in 2008 seeking permission to cancel its registration. The case was still pending in the Labour Court. If the allegation was proved, the union could lose its registration. The federation could appeal to the higher court for justice.

With regard to the amendment of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006, to keep pace with the changing global scenario in the world of work, the Government had initiated the amendment of the Labour Act to bring it more into line with ILO Conventions. Extensive tripartite consultations on the content of the amendment had been held, in particular in the Tripartite Labour Law Review Committee and the Tripartite Consultative Council. The whole drafting process had been shared with the Dhaka ILO Office to make it more compatible with international labour standards. The amendment had now been placed before Parliament and it was hoped that it would be enacted in the form of a bill in the current session of Parliament starting on 3 June 2013. In the amendment proposal for the Labour Act, special importance was being given to ensuring workers’ welfare, industrial safety, transparency in trade union registration, the wage payment system, and the promotion of trade unionism and collective bargaining. In this respect: (a) the provision regarding the submission of the list of workers intending to form trade unions to factory owners/management had been deleted; (b) workers would be able to obtain support from external experts in collective bargaining; (c) workers would have the right to form participation committees through direct election which could act as bargaining agents at workplaces under special circumstances. But this would not be a substitute for the trade union, and would rather facilitate trade union activities and collective bargaining. The amendment would thus bring the Labour Act more into conformity with international labour standards.

Regarding export processing zones (EPZs), the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Associations and Industrial Relations Act, 2010 (EWWAIRA 2010) provided for the formation of workers’ welfare associations (WWAs) with a right of collective bargaining. All elected executive committees of WWAs were actively performing their activities as collective bargaining agents with full freedom. Between January 2010 and March 2013, the Bangladesh Export Processing Zone Authority (BEPZA) had arranged referendums in 260 enterprises out of 339 eligible enterprises. Accordingly, 186 WWAs had so far been constituted. The BEPZA planned to arrange referendums in all the factories by 31 December 2013. WWAs would also have the right to call strike/work stoppages at the workplace from 1 January 2014. In order to promote the welfare of the workers in EPZs, the Government had formulated the “Constitution and Operation Procedures of EPZ Workers’ Welfare Fund, 2012”, which was already in force. In case of grievances, any worker could get an amicable solution by consultation with the counsellors appointed in EPZs. Additionally, EPZ Labour Tribunals and the EPZ Labour Appellate Tribunal had been established to settle complaints in EPZ areas. The BEPZA had already organized 392 training/awareness/motivational programmes for WWA members and workers regarding their rights and responsibilities and would ensure training programmes for WWA members/workers once a month in all zones. The BEPZA was always positive towards the formation of a WWA federation which would ensure full freedom of rights for workers. EPZs were restricted bonded areas and the BEPZA was committed to ensuring the security of foreign nationals and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). However, workers/WWA members were at liberty to do anything within the legal framework of the Constitution of Bangladesh outside the bonded area. Development partners had visited the different EPZ areas of Bangladesh and witnessed some referendums and elections for workers’ associations and workers’ welfare associations in EPZs and had expressed their satisfaction over free, fair and credible elections. The Government of Bangladesh was very committed to ensuring collective bargaining in EPZs. The EWWAIRA 2010 was only valid up to 31 December, 2013. It was planned to work with the ILO to find ways of bringing the EPZ areas under the purview of national labour law to ensure freedom of association, the right to bargaining and other issues concerning labour standards.

Concerning the exercise of the authority given by Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules (IRR), 1977, to the Registrar of Trade Unions (RTU) to enter trade union offices, inspect documents without judicial review, it should be noted that in normal situations the RTU did not enter the office of any trade union or federation for inspection unless the secretary or president of the trade union applied to the RTU for the removal of irregularities. In the context of Bangladesh, generally trade unions were reluctant to hand over offices and documents to the newly elected executives. Besides, the RTU frequently received complaints about embezzlement of union funds resulting in chaos in the establishment affecting productivity and the good environment. The RTU was the registering authority and could play a vital role in settling issues as per the provisions of the law. The role of the RTU in the matter was always subject to review by the judicial authority which guaranteed impartiality and objectivity. After the adoption of the rules under the Labour Act which had already been drafted, the IRR 1977 would no longer be applicable. This issue would be addressed after the amendment of the Labour Act when formulating the rules.

ILO technical assistance was already being provided to improve compliance with the Convention, particularly in the ready-made garment and shrimp industries. The initiatives taken included implementation of an ILO–International Finance Corporation (IFC) funded the better work programme in the ready-made garment sector and a USAID‑funded project in the shrimp sector. In the ready-made garment sector, the preparatory phase of the better work programme had been under implementation, namely “Promoting Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work in Bangladesh”. The project would contribute to ensuring the successful implementation of a potential fully-fledged better work programme in Bangladesh. The project aimed to support the amendment of the BLA 2006, improving the trade union registration system, capacity building for employers and trade unions and awareness raising. There were some concerns among the better work programme team relating to its implementation in Bangladesh. With the revision of the BLA 2006, the concerns would be allayed and the programme could be started soon. Further, to improve the labour standards situation in the shrimp sector, the Government of Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Shrimp and Fish Foundation (BSFF) and the Bangladesh Frozen Food Exporters Association (BFFEA) had already signed an agreement with the development partners for the implementation of a USAID-funded project. The BEPZA was looking forward to ILO technical cooperation for the further improvement of the workers’ rights in EPZs in Bangladesh.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the high propensity for the migration of workers from one factory to another had been a major reason for trade unionism not having taken root in Bangladesh, particularly in the garment sector. Other factors in the non-expansion of trade unions could be lack of education and awareness. The Government was trying to address this situation by organizing education, training and awareness programmes for workers through industrial relations institutes. The Government had recently introduced the online registration of trade unions on a pilot basis. The implementation of promotional activities under ILO technical assistance would surely improve labour law compliance in the country, including ensuring freedom of association and the right to bargaining in accordance with the Convention.

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative referred in particular to the range of measures taken with respect to the allegations of harassment of trade unionists and trade union leaders; the registration of the BGWIF; the amendment of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006; EPZs; Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977; and the technical assistance received from the ILO.

The Employer members indicated that the Committee had examined this case on 18 occasions since 1983, most recently in 2008. At that time, the Committee had requested the Government to eliminate all restrictions on freedom of association and to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention. The Government had reiterated on different occasions that it was working on the amendment of its legislation, but that there were no positive results. The Committee had expressed the hope, when it last examined this case, that the new Labour Act would be in conformity with the Convention. However, when the Committee of Experts had examined the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, it observed that all the provisions considered contrary to the Convention had remained. The Conference Committee had been then forced to request the Government once again to amend its legislation. The Employer members indicated that, according to their understanding, the Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF) had participated in the elaboration of a new Labour Act in the framework of the Tripartite Labour Law Review Committee and that the new Labour Act would be enacted by Parliament in June 2013. The Employer members expressed the hope that this could be considered as a positive development and that the new law would be in full conformity with the Convention. With respect to the implementation of the Convention in practice, the Employer members agreed with the Committee of Experts that workers’ and employers’ organizations could only exercise their rights in conditions free from threats, pressure and intimidation of any kind. This year, the case concerned allegations of violence and harassment of trade union leaders and trade unionists and the refusal to register unions in several sectors. The Employer members urged the Government to take the necessary measures to investigate the allegations related to violence and harassment of workers and to ensure full compliance with the Convention.

With respect to the EWWAIRA, the Employer members noted that the Committee of Experts had made 13 observations on the provisions of the Act with respect to the right to organize and the right to strike. Concerning the right to strike, they recalled their opinions as put forward in the framework of the examination of the General Survey and the general discussion in 2012. They reiterated that the right to strike was not expressly mentioned in the Convention and that there was no consensus in the Committee in that respect. The Committee of Experts had also referred to the existence of a multitude of complex regulations related to the EWWAIRA that hindered the establishment of workers’ organizations and, in this respect, had urged the Government to bring its legislation into full compliance with the Convention. With respect to Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977, the Employer members expressed their understanding that this provision had been repealed by virtue of the adoption of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006. They welcomed the establishment in EPZs of industrial relations offices to settle complaints and requested the Government to provide additional information in that regard. They also welcomed the information provided by the Government concerning the technical assistance already provided by the ILO, as well as the better work programme under implementation, and expressed the hope that it would successfully implement the Convention in the ready-made garment sector. They expressed their support for the amendment of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, the improvement of the procedures for trade union registration and the development of awareness-raising activities. They urged the Government to request ILO technical assistance to help it bring its law and practice into full compliance with the Convention.

The Worker members observed that, since the Conference Committee had last met, the world had watched in horror as over 1,000 garment workers had perished in Bangladesh. In November 2012, in the Tazreen Fashions factory in Dhaka, over 100 workers trapped inside by locked doors had died either from the smoke and the flames, or as they leapt from the windows in a desperate attempt to escape. In April 2013, the nine-story Rana Plaza building had collapsed on the outskirts of the capital city. The building had housed garment factories that produced apparel goods for retailers based in the United States and the European Union (EU). Large cracks in the walls had appeared the previous day, alarming both workers and building engineers. Nevertheless, the management of the garment companies had insisted that the workers report to work. Both of these unimaginable tragedies were, in part, the result of the fact that, until very recently, unions had been essentially prohibited from operating in the massive garment industry. With collective representation, workers could have more easily removed themselves from the hazardous workplaces before it was too late and insisted that the hazards be addressed. Furthermore, it had been reported that the previous week the police had opened fire at a protest by former workers at Rana Plaza factories who had taken to the streets to complain of their treatment by the authorities.

For many years, the Committee of Experts had reiterated its serious concerns with regard to the numerous deficiencies in the laws as they related to freedom of association and the utter failure of the Government to ensure that workers could exercise this fundamental right in practice. Regrettably, up to now, the Government had failed to act on the Committee of Experts’ recommendations. Moreover, in its current report the Committee of Experts requested the Government to take the necessary measures without delay to carry out investigations regarding the murder of trade unionists. The Worker members recalled that Mr Aminul Islam, President of the BGIWF Savar and Ashulia regional committee, had been found dead on 5 April 2012. His corpse showed signs of torture and, from the information available, it appeared that he had not been the victim of random violence, but rather targeted for his trade union work. His murder had no doubt been meant to send a clear message to trade unions not to organize in the garment industry. Although some suspects had been interrogated, no one had been arrested, and much less prosecuted for this crime. Particularly troubling was the statement made by the Prime Minister casting doubt on the fact that Mr Islam had never been a labour activist, even after the murder had featured in the international media. The Government could delay no further in making sure those responsible for Mr Islam’s murder were arrested and prosecuted appropriately. Furthermore, although it had referred to the killing of two bidi cigarette workers and the wounding of over 35 others by security guards on 16 July 2012, the Government had provided no information whatsoever as to the steps it had taken to prosecute the plant manager, who gave the order to the guards to open fire on a crowd of 3,000 workers who had staged a demonstration at the factory gates in an attempt to recover unpaid wages and to seek a pay raise. For several years, the Committee of Experts had also extensively criticized the law regulating labour relations for the tens of thousands of workers in EPZs. The EWWAIRA established a legislative framework for the exercise of labour rights in EPZs. However, the law fell well short of the Convention in that, among other things, workers were prohibited from forming trade unions but instead only workers’ associations. The EWWAIRA, rather than addressing the many shortcomings in the law, as identified by the Committee of Experts, extended the effective date of the existing scheme for another three years. Even this flawed Act could not be fully utilized, as rules and regulations still needed to be promulgated for many of the provisions of the Act to take effect. For example, a federation of workers’ associations could not be legally formed until the BEPZA had issued regulations. The BEPZA had yet to issue those regulations, thereby deliberately preventing workers’ associations from forming a federation in EPZs. There had also been no progress on bargaining in EPZs, largely due to BEPZA’s insistence that there was no room for collective bargaining on any working conditions above the minimum standards already established in the EWWAIRA and in BEPZA Instructions 1 and 2. The Government had still not signalled its intent to amend the Act, thereby depriving workers in EPZs of the possibility of even forming or joining trade unions.

With regard to the Labour Act, the Worker members observed that the Committee of Experts had, since its promulgation, expressed deep regret that it did not contain improvements over the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 and, in some respects, made the situation worse. There had in fact been a tripartite process to revise the Labour Act for over a year, and indeed worker representatives had participated actively in this process. As the Committee of Experts had noted, however, the revisions being considered when the report had been prepared “do not take into account most of the observations previously raised by the Committee”. That still remained true and, in fact, even fewer issues with regard to freedom of association were addressed in the proposed amendments. The Worker members expressed concern regarding the revision of the Labour Act as they understood that the proposals had just been submitted to Parliament for deliberation. In their view, addressing only one issue fully would represent serious contempt for the work of the Committee of Experts. Although the amendments proposed some improvements in areas unrelated to freedom of association, they introduced other changes prejudicial to unions and workers. The Government needed to take this opportunity to ensure that the amendments addressed the observations of the Committee of Experts.

Finally, roughly 29 new unions have been registered in the last few months. The long standing failure, or indeed refusal, to register trade unions, particularly in the garment sector, had always been a question of political will, and not a legal matter. Because of the substantial external pressure applied by foreign governments and the ILO, the Government had again permitted unions to be registered. It was obvious that the Government would stop registering unions as soon as the pressure was off. Indeed, that had been the case before. The registration of trade unions or employer associations should be a mere formality. For too long, the registration process had been tantamount to obtaining previous authorization. Industrial relations were built on the foundation of a sound legal framework, recognized worker and employer representatives, and collective bargaining. These did not exist today in Bangladesh. Instead, the legal framework was deeply flawed, most workers worked without representation due to a long-standing policy of refusing to register unions and collective bargaining coverage was minimal at best. If the Committee was to avoid the tragedies of recent months, it should urge the Government to make changes.

The Worker member of Bangladesh expressed his shock following the recent incidents in the ready-made garment sector where numerous lives had been lost. While acknowledging the Government’s efforts in the rescue operations, in the provision of medical treatment and compensation, as well as in rehabilitation programmes, he considered that the tragedy could have been avoided had there been adequate supervisory and monitoring mechanisms in the country. Inadequate security and inspection services had failed to ensure industrial safety. He urged the Government to take the necessary steps to strengthen labour inspection, the fire services and building inspection and to identify those buildings that were currently at risk in order to ensure that such incidents could never happen again. He also urged the Government to take measures so that those responsible were punished. He emphasized that the ready-made garment sector employed 3.5 million workers, most of whom were rural women. This had helped the empowerment of women. However, the profits had not been adequately distributed and workers in the sector did not enjoy decent working conditions. He expressed his support for sustainable development in the ready-made garment sector. The effective implementation and enforcement of international labour standards, including the right to organize and to bargain collectively, were the only alternative to uphold labour rights. He believed that the better work programme would help in this regard and urged the Government to take steps to ensure its full implementation. With respect to the registration of trade unions, he indicated that, under the Labour Act, upon receiving an application for registration of a new trade union, the registry authority had to provide the list of leaders to the employer. This gave the opportunity for unscrupulous employers to dismiss trade union leaders. He welcomed the fact that the proposed new Labour Act, as amended, would repeal this provision and expressed the hope that it would be enacted in the near future. He referred to other provisions of the Labour Act that were not in conformity with the Convention. With respect to measures for online trade union registration, he called on the Government to take steps to improve the system and to train workers to familiarize them with it. While welcoming the steps taken by the Government in order to allow labour courts and the Labour Appellate Tribunal in EPZs, he indicated that freedom of association almost did not exist there. Moreover, the Labour Act was not applicable in EPZs. He emphasized that participation committees and workers’ welfare associations could not replace the work of trade unions.

The Worker member of the United States stated that horrendous yet preventable disasters in the Bangladesh garment industry since 2005 had taken the lives of over 1,800 workers. In the shipbreaking industry, there were over 40,000 workers, among them many teenagers migrating from the poorest parts of the country, who worked with virtually no protections or rights and no union representation. Three attempts to create workplace-based unions had been denied registration by local governments, even though 70–95 per cent of workers supported the union and allies had provided expert advice. In this industry, at least one worker had died every month since 2005. The National Institute of Preventive and Social Medicine (NIPSOM) had found that 88 per cent of the workers interviewed had suffered some form of accidental injury while working in the Chittagong shipbreaking yards. At least now, after the death of well over 1,000 workers at Rana Plaza, people in positions of power were noting that the freedom to form unions was central to any solution. The highest United States diplomat for South Asia had bluntly stated in his Senate testimony the previous week that: “had there been a union representative on the ground at Rana Plaza that tragedy would not have happened”. Among the many well-documented, continuous and systematic violations of the Convention that explained why there was no union representative present, the persistent refusal of the Government to register trade unions was obvious, basic and undeniable. No doubt the Government would point to the very recent registration of over 27 garment workers’ unions. However, 21 of these were registered after the November 2012 Tazreen fire and increased media attention. How many lives would have been saved by making it possible to have a union representative present by taking the first simple step of recognizing a union’s legal existence by processing and communicating its registration to workers and their elected leaders? Yet, even when this simple step was taken, it was necessary to remain vigilant. Most of the garment workers who had successfully registered new unions since the Tazreen fire had faced termination and other anti-union discrimination and none had been able to secure formal collective bargaining agreements. Given the difficulties faced by workers in organizing unions, their survival was dependent on broader civil society allies, nationally and internationally. Worker allies, like the Bangladesh Centre for Workers Solidarity, had repeatedly been harassed and charged with criminal offences and had their legal registration challenged and revoked. Once again, in the context of international pressure, the Government had undertaken to restoring this registration, which it had to honour. The accord on fire and building safety that had been negotiated and signed by local unions, the Industrial Global Union and UNI Global Union, and non-governmental organization allies with international brands and local suppliers offered a way forward in industrial relations in the Bangladesh garment sector. It supplemented and improved Government efforts that had so often failed. However, just as commitment and action were required by multinational companies and local producers, legally recognized and registered workplace unions were central to this solution. The tripartite accord urgently required the Government to register and respect the growth and day-to-day operations of real unions with a strong presence in the workplace, as well as action from the Government and the ILO. More multinational companies whose supply chains drew heavily from the Bangladesh garment industry should sign on. He called on the Government to honour many recent commitments to register unions and respect organizing and bargaining rights. The international labour movement would remain watchful for positive developments, and return to this and other forums to support Bangladesh’s workers as they sought to claim their rights.

The Employer member of Bangladesh reaffirmed the commitment of the BEF to the promotion of freedom of association in the country. Despite being one of the least-developed countries in the world, confronted with many challenges and upheavals, Bangladesh had made remarkable progress in fulfilling the targets of some of the Millennium Development Goals and was visible in global affairs in terms of exports, particularly ready-made garments, shrimps, leather and leather goods, frozen foods, jute and jute goods. However, Bangladesh needed to significantly improve its overall governance standards, attain sound political systems and stability and address social safety nets and security issues so that it offered decent work for all its citizens. While appreciating the observations made by the Committee of Experts, he stressed that, while workers had the right to negotiate and resolve issues through discussion, in practice, in most cases, a different scenario was observed, involving vandalism, blockades, fires, the destruction of equipment and machinery. This took place with the support of certain external miscreants, who were in no way believed to be actual workers or trade union leaders, resulting in a chaotic situation at the factories. At times, such unrest had taken place based on rumours spread by some external quarters to serve narrow interests. In such cases, the police and law enforcement agencies needed to take immediate action to protect the life and properties of workers and employers. The BEF had never supported any illegal arrests or harassment; rather, it strongly believed that freedom of association could be exercised in a situation that was free from violence, pressure or threats. With regard to the registration of the BGIWF, he indicated that this matter was pending in court and a final verdict was awaited. Regarding the amendment of the Labour Act, the BEF had played a pioneering role in the formulation of various suggestions intended to make it more user-friendly and attain a win–win situation. It had volunteered to host a tripartite consultative council meeting in the beginning of 2013 to consider the amendment, which was now at the final stage and likely to be enacted by Parliament in June 2013. Furthermore, he understood that the Government had a plan to gradually implement freedom of association in EPZs and suggested that the Government should consider accelerating this process, keeping in conformity with international standards and investors’ needs. The BEF strongly felt that the Government should exercise its regulatory tools more efficiently to better facilitate the functioning of trade unions in the country, taking into account workers’ and employers’ welfare.

The Government member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Government members of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, expressed deep concern about the working conditions in Bangladesh, including freedom of association and collective bargaining. The current situation was alarming and she referred, in this context, to the tragic incident in a textile factory where many workers had lost their lives. Deploring the lack of opportunities for trade unions and workers to exercise their rights of freedom of association, the Governments’ interference in the administration of trade unions, as well as lengthy legal processes for the registration of trade unions, she questioned the willingness of the Government to comply with the Convention. At the same time, it was reassuring that the Government was about to take measures to ensure the protection of working conditions, decent wages and the right of freedom of association and collective bargaining. She called on the authorities to act expeditiously and decisively to bring the law and practice fully into compliance with Conventions Nos 87 and 98. Welcoming the steps taken so far by the authorities, she strongly encouraged them to continue working closely with the ILO to make sure that the amended legislation addressed the requests of the supervisory bodies. The adoption of amendments to the legislation was a crucial, but only first step, in the process, and subsequent measures to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of the new legislation were equally critical. Recognizing the significance of ready-made garments to the economy and their contribution to development, she emphasized that the Decent Work Agenda, including well-functioning occupational safety and health, was of utmost importance to secure a long-term and prosperous industry. The Nordic countries provided support for the Decent Work Agenda in Bangladesh, including in the areas of occupational safety and health and fundamental principles and rights at work. Welcoming the adoption of a joint statement by the tripartite partners with the ILO, on 4 May 2013, she expressed the hope that this would help to ensure workers’ rights and representation, but emphasized that this was first and foremost the responsibility of the Government. She urged the Government to cooperate fully and to respond in substance to the requests made by the Committee of Experts, and endorsed the efforts of the Office to help in this regard. It was only by engaging with the social partners that compliance could be secured in national law with ILO Conventions, among which Conventions Nos 87 and 98 were of particular importance. The setting up of an effective labour inspection was equally important. The authorities should work with the social partners, producers and buyers to take measures to ensure responsible supply chains, in line with ILO standards and corporate social responsibility principles. To this end, the Government was strongly advised to continue to fully avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO, including comments and advice made on all relevant draft legislation.

The Government member of Switzerland expressed her country’s support for the people of Bangladesh following one of the worst industrial disasters of recent years. The dramatic incidents that had occurred in textile factories showed how urgent it was to act and to work towards the effective application of occupational safety legislation in the country. The discussions under way on reforming labour law should lead to rapid reforms that would improve, in particular, protection for fundamental rights, such as freedom of association and collective bargaining, as well as occupational safety and health. The Government should promote freedom of association and ensure that its law and practice were fully in line with the Convention. It should also enter into genuine social dialogue, which was the only guarantee of the effective application of occupational safety and health legislation, as textile workers must be assured of safe and decent working conditions as a matter of urgency. In that regard, the Government and the social partners should agree to establish a better work programme as quickly as possible after Parliament’s adoption of the labour law reform, in accordance with international Conventions. The Office should ensure coordination between activities relating to respect for fundamental principles and rights at work, the national security plan and the agreement signed by multinationals in the textile sector.

The Worker member of Australia emphasized that, in the wake of the Tazreen and Rana Plaza disasters, much had rightly been heard about the responsibility of employers, and the global brands which sourced their garments through those employers, to ensure that workplaces were safe and that they complied with labour laws. However, as the fundamental ILO Conventions made clear, it was the responsibility of the Government to adopt, maintain and enforce laws that secured and protected the fundamental labour rights of its workers. At present, the Government of Bangladesh was failing to fulfil that responsibility, and in particular it was failing to meet its international obligations to ensuring the conformity of its labour laws with the Convention. The provisions of the Labour Act which gave rise to the greatest concern, included those excluding entire classes of workers from the rights and protections under the Act, or from key parts of the Act, such as the right to establish workers’ organizations and to organize. Other provisions in the Act imposed an excessively high minimum membership requirement for union registration. Restrictions were placed on anyone holding office in a union who was not employed or engaged in the establishment covered by that union. New provisions of the Act establishing a penalty of imprisonment for acts by workers or trade unions aimed at “intimidating” any person to become, continue or cease to be a trade union member or officer were excessively broad and risked capturing legitimate trade union activities. There were also a range of provisions which constituted unacceptable administrative interference in the rules, elections, affairs and activities of trade unions. There was a lack of clarity in the Act concerning the extent to which collective bargaining was permitted above the enterprise level and numerous restrictions were imposed on the right to strike which were inconsistent with the Convention. There were also many other restrictive provisions in other laws. She acknowledged that a process was under way in Bangladesh to reform a limited number of provisions in the Labour Act which had been facilitated by the ILO and had involved consultation with the social partners. However, the proposed package of amendments, as it currently stood, only directly addressed one of the many legal problems identified by the Committee of Experts, which continued to call for more extensive changes. The Government should bear in mind that the adoption and enforcement of laws fully guaranteeing and protecting freedom of association and collective bargaining was in the longer term interest and benefit of everyone. Trade union rights and freedoms were critical to ensuring that workers could join together to defend and pursue their rights, and therefore to ensuring that the workers were better placed to respond to the immense challenges that they faced within and outside their workplaces. They were also critical to the attainment of decent work in Bangladesh and to the country meeting its ambitious objective of moving from a low- to a middle-income country by 2021.

The Government member of the United States said that recent tragic events in Bangladesh that had resulted in immense loss of life, with over 1,000 people killed in the Rana Plaza building collapse in late April and over 100 in the Tazreen factory fire in November 2012, served to re‑emphasize the importance of discussing the application of the Convention by Bangladesh. Sadly, the link between worker safety and health and the right to freedom of association had never been clearer. Workers who could organize robust unions were better able to advocate adequate working conditions, including workplace safety. Consequently, the prevention of future tragedies would require improved guarantees of a stronger voice and role for workers and the protection of freedom of association, the right to organize and collective bargaining. Her country retained long-standing and serious concerns relating to workers’ rights and working conditions in Bangladesh. A petition filed by the American Federation of Labour and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) under the Generalized System of Preferences Act remained under review and a decision on how to proceed would be taken soon. The recent tragedies demonstrated the need for more urgent and coordinated action among all stakeholders, and especially the Government, to address those concerns by improving legal protections and the good governance necessary to enforce their implementation. The highest priorities were the enactment of robust amendments to the Labour Act, beyond those presently under consideration, alongside improvements in union registration procedures and the improved enforcement of laws and regulations. The aim was to secure genuine and sustainable protection of the fundamental rights to freedom of association and to organize, as well as occupational safety and health, focusing on the ready-made garment sector and EPZs, but also more broadly throughout Bangladesh. She expressed appreciation of the positive statements by the Government following the recent workplace tragedies and welcomed its stated commitment to ensuring compliance with the Convention and promoting freedom of association in Bangladesh. However, it was now time to move from words to actions. She urged Bangladesh to take the measures recommended by the Committee of Experts to bring its law and practice into full conformity with the Convention and to make use of the expert advice and assistance of the ILO for that purpose.

The Worker member of the Philippines emphasized that the universal right of workers to establish and join organizations of their own choosing was not observed in law or practice in Bangladesh. The experience of the Philippines demonstrated the exploitation faced by workers in EPZs, who often faced dismissal or discrimination for trade union activities, while employers could refuse to recognize unions or to negotiate, or might even set up their own company-dominated or “yellow” unions. Over the years, very many workers had lost their jobs, been harassed, beaten or arrested when attempting to exercise their fundamental right to freedom of association in EPZs. Some 360,000 workers were employed in the eight EPZs in Bangladesh. However, even as reforms were considered to the Labour Act, EPZ workers remained excluded and relegated to a separate law that prohibited them from establishing unions. The Government appeared to have promised investors to keep EPZs union free. Enacted nearly ten years previously in response to a Generalized System of Preference petition filed in the United States, the EWWAIRA, for the first time, established a legislative framework for the exercise of labour rights in EPZs. However, the Act fell well short of international standards. In place of unions, the Act currently provided for the establishment of “workers’ welfare associations”, on which the workers representatives were often handpicked or appointed by employers. The formation of many such associations had been at the initiative of the BEPZA, not the workers. There had been almost no progress on collective bargaining in EPZs, largely due to BEPZA’s position that workers could not bargain on working conditions above the minimum standards established in the Act and in BEPZA instructions, even though the law clearly established the full entitlement of workers to negotiate collectively over wages, hours and conditions of work. Many workers’ association leaders reported that they had been harassed, suspended, dismissed without cause and/or subject to other forms of retaliation. In one case, workers from the Ishwardi EPZ had held a demonstration in 2012 concerning serious violations of their rights, including harassment and discrepancies over wages and leave. Following the unrest, 291 workers, including the presidents of workers’ associations, had been dismissed. In negotiations with international buyers and the owner, the factories had agreed to reinstate the leaders and the other 289 workers and had sought BEPZA’s approval to remove them from an EPZ “blacklist”. However, BEPZA had refused permission to reinstate the workers on the grounds that there was no prior practice or any provision in BEPZA rules and regulations allowing for the reinstatement of a terminated worker. Most troubling, the communication from the owner confirmed the existence of a black list.

The Government member of Canada offered sincere condolences to the people of Bangladesh following the collapse of the Rana Plaza building. He emphasized that Canada remained concerned about dangerous working conditions in the garment sector in Bangladesh and expected all of its trading partners to ensure safe working conditions consistent with international standards. He applauded the recent ILO high-level mission to Bangladesh and the Office’s coordination efforts in the country. He urged the Government to implement in full the resulting plan of action and to work together for that purpose with the ILO, employers, workers and other stakeholders. He also urged the Government to take all the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into full conformity with the Convention, in accordance with the comments of the Committee of Experts. While noting the proposed amendments to the Labour Act, which had been submitted to Parliament, he observed with concern that they were not consistent with international standards. He emphasized that freedom of association was an essential element for the functioning of the labour system, such as enabling workers to protect themselves including through participation in occupational safety and health measures. He therefore hoped that the collective energy following the recent tragic industrial accidents would be sustained and would result in measurable progress on many fronts.

The Worker member of Italy said that it was not surprising that Bangladesh was receiving a high level of international attention concerning its poor working conditions, lack of health and safety, low wages, long working hours and repression of labour rights, particularly in the ready-made garment industry. The Rana Plaza disaster had shown once again the many situations of violation of basic human rights and fundamental labour standards. Nor was it the only deadly workplace tragedy, as around 600 workers in the garment sector had been killed by fires since 2005. Moreover, up to now no one had been brought to justice. Garment production represented 80 per cent of Bangladeshi manufacturing exports, employing around 3.5 million people, mostly women. The rapidly growing number of factories mainly produced for Western brands, through a supply chain that placed increasing pressure on rights and labour costs. The race to the bottom in search of the lowest wages made Bangladesh a very attractive country for many suppliers who considered trade unions a danger to their profits. Until now the Government had facilitated this easy area for exploitation to attract foreign investment. She added that for many years the situation in the garment industry in Bangladesh had been characterized by anti-union violence, harassment and arrests. With the collusion of the authorities, employers in the sector had filed complaints against workers, unions and non-governmental organizations in criminal courts. Those cases were very costly, making it extremely difficult for workers to defend themselves. They often dragged on indefinitely and carried heavier sentences than cases in labour courts, thereby serving to intimidate workers engaged in trade union activities. One of the best known cases was that of Aminul Islam, who had been detained by the National Security Intelligence in 2010, beaten severely and sustained a fractured leg. The circumstances of his detention and the attempt to elicit a confession pointed to a targeted campaign against organizations that endeavoured to organize workers in the garment sector. Shortly afterwards, Aminul Islam had been abducted, tortured and his body dumped by the roadside. Now, a year after his death, little progress had been made in identifying and prosecuting those responsible and there were many indications of the involvement of the intelligence agencies in his death. She urged Bangladesh to ensure the effective implementation of fundamental United Nations and ILO human rights and labour instruments. The Government could not give the appearance to the world of expressing sorrow at the loss of life suffered without taking immediate action to ensure that workers enjoyed the basic right of association and that factories across the country complied with international labour standards.

The Government member of India noted with satisfaction the initiative to amend the Labour Act and believed that the progress made towards the amendment of the Act constituted a positive step that would help to resolve the issue. His Government had consistently encouraged dialogue and cooperation between the ILO and member States with a view to resolving all outstanding issues. Member States could also provide support to Bangladesh in view of the efforts that were being made by the Government for the implementation of the Convention.

The Government representative thanked the social partners for their comments and expressed appreciation of constructive criticisms, which could lead to positive developments. His Government always adhered to the recommendations of the Conference Committee and had carefully noted the points made during the discussion. He added that it was imperative for Bangladesh to comply with the requirements of the Convention, which had been ratified in 1972, one year after the country’s independence. He reaffirmed that the Government was taking steps to address all the comments made by the Committee of Experts. Those included the amendment of the Labour Act through the inclusion of special provisions respecting the registration of trade unions to ensure that the situation was more comfortable for workers’ organizations. The amendments included the removal of the requirement to provide employers with lists of trade union members. The workers would undoubtedly benefit from the extension of collective bargaining. With regard to workers in EPZs, he recalled that they enjoyed a form of participation through welfare associations which, although not a substitute for trade unions, constituted a complementary mechanism to trade union action. It was to be hoped that they would be instrumental in the improvement of working conditions through improved social dialogue. The proposed amendments also included restrictions on the dismissal of workers during the process of the formation of trade unions. The amendments had been submitted to Parliament on 8 June. They were not yet in their final form and other suggestions could still be taken into account.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative for his responses to the statements made by various members of the Committee during the discussion. They welcomed the recognition by the Government of the need to change the national law to bring it into full compliance with the Convention and the commitment expressed to the principles of freedom of association. The Government should build on the steps that had already been taken to achieve full conformity with the Convention and supply a report on the steps taken this year to the Committee of Experts so that it could assess the progress made and consider any further measures that would need to be adopted. The Employer members therefore encouraged the Government to ensure that the Labour Act was in full conformity with the Convention and to accept the technical assistance offered. They also encouraged it to continue and strengthen social dialogue so that the social partners could be involved in bringing national law and practice into conformity with the Convention.

The Worker members recalled that the Committee of Experts had called on the Government to carry out investigations into the serious allegations made, including murder, with a view to punishing those responsible. They therefore deeply regretted that the Government had taken little action in that respect and urged it immediately to investigate, arrest and prosecute those responsible for such crimes, and particularly the murder of Aminul Islam. The Committee of Experts had also repeatedly commented on the numerous flaws in the Labour Act, the EWWAIRA and the Industrial Relations Rules. Although the Government had made no effort to ensure that workers in EPZs had the right to organize into trade unions and were able to bargain collectively in practice, the offer to extend the provisions of the Labour Act to EPZ workers was to be welcomed. However, the Worker members were bound to express disappointment at the low level of the Government’s ambition to address the many issues raised concerning the Labour Act. They urged Parliament not to rush through the amendments as they currently stood, but to work with the ILO to ensure their compliance with the observations of the Committee of Experts. The ILO should intensify existing efforts in that respect.

The Worker members added that the recent registration of trade unions appeared to depend entirely on the will of the Government. For years, it had refused to register new unions in many sectors, including the garment sector, and there was little to suggest that it would continue their registration once the spotlight began to dim. Moreover, they expressed concern at the continued defence of intervention in union affairs in the closing statement by the Government representative. They emphasized that one of the best ways to avoid another industrial disaster in Bangladesh was to ensure that workers could exercise their rights guaranteed by the Convention. They therefore expressed their appreciation to the international brands that had signed, with the global unions, the international accord on fire and building safety, which recognized the importance of trade union action in fire and building safety. They called on the ILO to intervene immediately with the Government to ensure that the labour legislation currently before Parliament was in compliance with the observations of the Committee of Experts, as there was no reason why those observations could not be addressed in full. The ILO should significantly increase its capacity for technical cooperation at the Dhaka Office in relation to freedom of association and collective bargaining including, but not limited to, the garment sector. The ILO and the relevant international organizations should work to ensure that those responsible for the murder of trade unionists were arrested and prosecuted. The Government should be requested to provide a report this year on compliance with its obligations under the Convention. Finally, the ILO Dhaka Office should submit full reports to the October 2013 and March 2014 sessions of the Governing Body on its activities and on the situation in the country with regard to freedom of association and fire and building safety.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2008, Publication: 97th ILC session (2008)

A Government representative reaffirmed that his Government was fully committed to complying with various ILO Conventions, as well as to promoting labour union activities and freedom of association in Bangladesh. His Government took seriously into account any allegations of the violation of ILO Conventions and had looked into the allegations raised very carefully. He recalled in this respect that his country had ratified a total of 33 ILO Conventions, including seven fundamental Conventions.

He recalled that the Labour Law 2006 had been enacted after protracted consultations with stakeholders over a period of 14 years. The Labour Law fostered trade union activities, and he noted in this connection that various trade unions had held elections in recent months and that permissions for the right to organize were being granted to labour union activists. Nevertheless, some parties still felt that the Labour Law 2006 needed improving.

He also noted that there had been cases when non-workers had attempted to foment unrest and vandalize small businesses. He recalled that the Government was responsible for maintaining public order and affirmed that the law enforcement agencies had shown great restraint in such circumstances. The action taken by the law enforcement agencies had been in accordance with the law of the land under the direct supervision of judicial magistrates. Such action was not intended to harass trade union leaders or prevent them from pursuing legitimate union activities. Although the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) had referred to a few cases, he emphasized that they were isolated instances which did not establish a pattern of violations. As a preventive measure, the Government had established a Task Force on Labour Welfare with the participation of worker representatives and a Crisis Management Committee headed by a senior official of the Ministry of Labour and Employment.

Turning to the specific allegations contained in the report of the Committee of Experts, he affirmed that none of the people mentioned were still in custody and that all of them had been released on bail. The Government was not actively pursuing their cases. He added that there were over 5,000 factories in the country with 2.5 million workers and that it was not easy to maintain law and order in all of the factories. The Government was committed to ensuring law and order in factories with the utmost restraint. However, certain non-workers took advantage of the situation, and in certain cases took refuge in trade union offices. Extra care was taken in enforcing the law in such cases. For example, the 250 garment workers detained in 2006 had all been released and their cases were not being pursued.

With reference to export processing zones (EPZs), he recalled that they had been in existence for the past two decades with a view to promoting foreign direct investment in the country. There were over 250 factories in EPZs and their owners were committed to establishing fully fledged trade unions in their factories by 2010 in accordance with the EPZ Workers' Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2004. In the meantime, workers' associations had been established in all factories in EPZs as from November 2006 to look after the welfare of workers. There were presently 177 elected workers' representation and welfare committees in EPZs. The wages and other benefits enjoyed by workers were significantly higher in EPZs than elsewhere in the country, and laws and regulations on trade union activities in EPZs were constantly being improved.

He also described the activities undertaken by the Government to promote freedom of association and decent work conditions. He indicated that a policy was being finalized in consultation with worker representatives and NGOs for the elimination of child labour, with a view to ensuring workplaces free of child labour. Several projects were being undertaken, including one time-bound ILO project which was in its second phase and was aimed at removing 45,000 child labourers from hazardous work in eight major cities. Another Government project involving multiple stakeholders was intended to remove 30,000 children from hazardous work, provide them with non-formal education and skills training and offer their parents microcredit to secure their livelihoods. With ILO assistance, guidelines had been developed for shipbreaking workers and training was provided to them on such matters as occupational safety and health. A project was also being implemented to educate tea estate workers with a view to helping them avoid social violence and infection with sexually transmissible diseases. He added that minimum wage provisions had been announced in the ready-made garment sector and in 35 other sectors. Moreover, the minimum wage had achieved a 98 per cent implementation rate in the ready-made garment sector.

With regard to the Tripartite Consultation Committee, he indicated that it was a very effective body with 60 members and that the Government was committed to making it more representative. He referred in this respect to a recent meeting with representative trade union leaders at which decisions had been taken to facilitate more vigorous trade union activities and to make the Tripartite Consultation Committee more representative by co-opting new members.

In conclusion, he noted that the caretaker Government was preparing for the holding of elections in December 2008 and was relaxing the measures respecting trade union activities. Efforts were being made to promote corporate social responsibility so that employers felt obliged to support the welfare of workers, and the conditions of workers were being monitored by the Factories and Establishments Inspectorate.

The Employer members recalled that the Committee had been dealing with the issue of freedom of association in Bangladesh since 1983. The last discussions had been held in 1997 and 1999. The General Survey of 1994 on Convention No. 87 had emphasized that the legislation in Bangladesh was not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee had repeatedly requested the Government to bring the country's legislation into conformity with the requirements of Convention No. 87, as had the Committee of Experts, and to remove the restrictions on freedom of association in law and practice.

The Government had repeatedly referred to work on the legislation in various legislative commissions, but so far without visible results. The first paragraph of the observation of the Committee of Experts showed optimism and hope that after many years, improvements would now materialize. The new Labour Law 2006, had been enacted, which had superseded the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The Committee of Experts had analysed the new Law in detail as far as freedom of association was concerned. The Employer members were bound to express great disappointment with the results of the analysis. Based on this analysis, they were under the impression that all provisions criticized in previous years by the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts had once again been incorporated into the new Labour Law. For example, managers and workers in the public administration continued to be excluded from the right to establish workers' organizations, in the same way as many other groups of workers, such as casual workers. Certain measures taken by trade unions to find new members were qualified as "intimidating", and therefore inadmissible. The minimum membership requirement for the registration of a trade union was still 30 per cent of all the workers in an enterprise. It was prohibited to be a member of multiple trade unions and violations of this prohibition were sanctioned with detention. With regard to the point concerning restrictions on the right to strike raised by the Committee of Experts, the Employer members referred to their usual position on this subject. The Employer members were not able to relate to the fact that the experts paid so much attention to a matter which was not regulated in Convention No. 87.

The Employer members had referred to only a few of the points raised by the Committee of Experts. Nevertheless, they wondered whether the Government had totally misunderstood or simply ignored the requests by both the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts to bring the legislation into line with the Convention. Against the background of the comments made by the Government representative, the Employer members welcomed that he accepted the fact that the new Labour Code had to be amended once again.

The Employer members also expressed concern at the developments in practice in the country, such as the multiple detentions of trade unionists, especially trade union leaders, in the context of demonstrations, and the punishments imposed on them. The Government had taken the position that in the course of demonstrations, public law and order needed to be maintained. This, however, could not justify all the measures against trade unionists, as described by the Committee of Experts. Regarding the implementation of the Convention in practice, the Employer members agreed with the Committee of Experts that workers' and employers' organizations could only exercise their rights in conditions free from threats, pressure and intimidation of any kind. In situations such as those described in the observation, a targeted strategy of de-escalation might be necessary.

The third issue indicated by the Committee of Experts was freedom of association of workers in EPZs. In EPZs, a multitude of complex regulations existed which, in part, set insurmountable obstacles to the establishment of workers' organizations. The Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee had repeatedly requested the Government to ensure the implementation of the Convention in EPZs as well.

Finally, the Employer members referred to the question of the government official responsible for trade union registration who still possessed far-reaching powers over access to and the supervision of trade union offices. This point remained unclear.

The Employer members urged the Government to report in detail whether, in addition to the points already raised in relation to the Labour Law, there were any other provisions in the law which might be in accordance with the Convention. Otherwise, the new Labour Law would need to be amended as soon as possible. Moreover, the provisions for the establishment of workers' organizations in EPZs would have to be aligned with the Convention. In practice, freedom of association could only be developed and exercised in a climate free from threats. If there were still any obstacles, the Government should - 26 years after its ratification of the Convention - request the Office for technical assistance.

The Worker members recalled that the case of Bangladesh, concerning the application of Convention No. 98, had been discussed in 2006, when the Employer and Worker members, together with a significant number of Governments, had emphasized the extreme seriousness of the case. This had led to the Committee adopting harsh conclusions on the importance of ensuring suitable protection against acts of interference and guaranteeing the exercise of free and voluntary collective bargaining in the public and private sectors without legal obstacles, and on the important difficulties encountered by workers in the exercise of trade union rights in EPZs. On that occasion, the Committee had decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report.

This year, the case of Bangladesh was being examined in relation to the application of Convention No. 87, which was closely linked to Convention No. 98. The comments made by the Committee of Experts on the application of Convention No. 87 were discouraging. In August 2007, the ITUC had, among other information, made a series of grave allegations to the Office concerning violations of civil liberties relating to: the death of a trade unionist killed by the police; the particularly harsh repression by a rapid intervention army battalion; the arrest of strikers and demonstrators, and in particular of trade union leaders; harassment by the police against the American Center for International Labor Solidarity; the shots fired at Mohammed Firoz Mia, President of the Bangladeshi telephone union.

In its observation, the Committee of Experts recalled that freedom of association could only be exercised in a climate free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind. To a certain extent, the violence concerned trade union campaigns for the defence of workers' rights in EPZs, where the EPZ Workers' Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2004 was still in force and violated the fundamental rights of workers in several respects. The first of these violations concerned the prohibition of establishing trade unions in EPZs, which was due to be removed at the end of 2006. The situation still remained unchanged, however, or at least the Government had not provided any information on this subject.

It should be recalled that the Committee on Freedom of Association, on the basis of a complaint by the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF), had already adopted important conclusions on trade union rights in EPZs. The Committee on Freedom of Association had recalled that workers in EPZs, despite the economic arguments often put forward, should enjoy the trade union rights provided for by the freedom of association Conventions like other workers, without distinction whatsoever. The Committee on Freedom of Association had also considered that the blanket denial of the right to organize in EPZs amounted to a serious violation of the principles of freedom of association, and particularly Article 2 of Convention No. 87, which guaranteed all workers the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. With a view to confirming the legal framework of the Convention, the Committee on Freedom of Association had formulated 15 concrete recommendations.

In its observation, the Committee of Experts also noted serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention. In the same way as the Committee of Experts, the Worker members observed that the new Labour Law, which replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance in 2006, did not contain any improvement. On the contrary, in certain regards it had introduced new restrictions: the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right to organize; the exclusion of a series of sectors; the restriction of membership in trade unions and the participation in trade union elections only to those workers who were employed in the establishment concerned; the sanctions envisaged for certain methods of recruiting union members; the strict criteria of representativeness; the prohibition on unregistered unions from collecting funds; and several restrictions on the right to strike. The Worker members shared the deep concern expressed by the Committee of Experts in its observation and the urgent call by the Committee of Experts to bring an end to the serious violations of trade union rights and the denial of the fundamental rights of workers in EPZs and elsewhere.

The Committee of Experts had made a large number of comments since 1989 on the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98 by Bangladesh and the Conference Committee had adopted conclusions on several occasions, drawing attention in particular to the problems in EPZs. Over the same period, the Committee on Freedom of As- sociation had also formulated several recommendations. It could therefore be concluded that this was a case of con- tinued failure to apply the freedom of association Conventions.

If the case was on the list, it was also due to the developments in the situation at the national level, which could be classified as extremely serious. Those who had hoped that the situation would improve after the installation of the new caretaker Government had been mistaken. On the contrary, the situation had deteriorated. Trade union activity had become almost impossible. Trade union secretariats had closed down. Strikes and demonstrations were prohibited. Trade union leaders were arrested or intimidated by criminal prosecutions, which were often totally unjustified. Trade union activists in enterprises were obliged to resign and were under physical threat. New unions could not register. Moreover, the national press reported that the police had fired on workers in the garment industry who were demonstrating in favour of a readjustment of their purchasing power following the steep rise in the prices of basic foodstuffs, a claim that was clearly justified when the basic wage was no higher than US$25 a month. It should also be noted that the Govern- ment had prohibited unions from celebrating May Day.

In its observation, the Committee of Experts proposed substantial amendments to the legislation to bring it into conformity with Convention No. 87. However, over recent months, the workers had been faced by even more restrictive legislative proposals. The Government was clearly taking advantage of the state of emergency that the country had been in since January 2007 to engage in a heavy-handed repression of trade union rights. This not only gave rise to social problems, but also to economic difficulties, particularly for the garment industry. The employment of 2.5 million workers in these sectors was under serious threat because Western countries and enterprises were increasingly demanding respect for the fundamental rights of workers.

The Government member of Pakistan noted with satisfaction that several measures had been taken by the Government of Bangladesh to implement Convention No. 87. He was encouraged by the fact that permission for labour activities had been granted under the 2006 Labour Law, which fostered trade union activities. Several other measures, including the establishment of the Tripartite Consultative Committee and steps taken by the Ministry responsible for shipbreaking, were also a positive indication. He hoped that the new Government, which would take office after the elections to be held in December 2008, would take further steps and remove the prohibitions on trade union activities in EPZs and on membership of multiple trade unions.

The Worker member of Bangladesh said that, following confrontational politics in Bangladesh, the President, acting under the country's Constitution, had declared a state of emergency and formed a caretaker Government, which had taken office in January 2007. All political and trade union activities had subsequently been suspended. The application of Convention No. 87 had also been suspended, leaving trade union leaders unable to exercise their right to freedom of association. The Government had undertaken some reforms with a view to holding free and fair parliamentary elections, which were scheduled for December 2008. The Tripartite Consultative Committee had been formed to discuss, negotiate and find solutions to labour issues, and to develop a strategy to restore the application of Convention No. 87. Several high-level meetings had been held but, despite intense pressure on the Government, freedom of association had yet to be restored.

Meanwhile, as a result of sky-rocketing prices, the purchasing power of low-paid workers had been tremendously affected, resulting in demonstrations by workers and organizations in the garment sector to voice legitimate demands in defence of their wages and livelihood. After prolonged agitation by the labour movement in 2006, a tripartite memorandum of understanding had been signed with the previous Government, fulfilling the demands of the garment workers. Although its provisions had been implemented by some parts of the garment industry, the precarious situation of many companies had prevented its universal implementation. If the Government did not restore Convention No. 87, more agitation and demonstration would follow, despite the current state of emergency.

Unprecedented price rises had gravely affected the country's workers. The minimum wage had been fixed at US$25 per month, which was insufficient for even a single person to live on. In the light of price increases, wages needed to be reviewed and the minimum wage fixed at US$75 per month. Workers had also faced problems as a result of the absence of fundamental trade union rights, which jeopardized and severely hindered the exercise of human rights, as well as the application of Convention No. 87.

The Government had proposed the repeal of the Act on political parties, which contained a provision stating that all political parties had to include a labour organization. This had the effect of politicizing trade unions, and he therefore welcomed the Government's proposal. His organization was strongly in favour of establishing a non-partisan trade union movement in Bangladesh, an aim which was also being pursued and promoted by the ILO.

In 2006, during the last tenure of the previous Government, a number of labour laws had been enacted or amended to the great detriment of the trade union movement. It was now mandatory that, soon after receiving an application for union registration, the registration authority had to provide the employer concerned with a list of the union's proposed leaders. While few unions in fact sought registration, those who did found that the employer had dismissed all the proposed leaders and had them brutally beaten by hired thugs. Another provision stipulated that if the Director of Labour failed to conduct an election for any reason within the required period, the union currently serving as collective bargaining agent (CBA) would remain as such for an unlimited period, which violated the democratic rights of workers.

The caretaker Government had raised some points for discussion by the Tripartite Consultative Committee, including the requirement that there could be only one union in each establishment, that union offices should not be established within 200 yards of the enterprise concerned, and that anyone intending to run for election to any trade union office should first obtain training on trade unions. Trade union leaders had voiced strong opposition to such proposals at meetings of the Tripartite Consultative Committee, and Government representatives had said that they would not be enacted without trade union support. He hoped that the Government would keep its promise.

With regard to multinational enterprises, the speaker recalled that, within the tripartite system which had existed before the state of emergency, many companies had been reluctant to discuss matters relating to contract labour. Despite strong opposition from the unions, many companies were engaging contract workers, while at the same time implementing a "voluntary" retirement scheme on a compulsory basis. Freedom of association in EPZs had virtually disappeared although, following several meetings with the ILO and other bodies, the Government had eventually decided to allow the formation of consultative committees in the respective industries in EPZs. He expressed the hope that full freedom of association would be established in EPZs.

The speaker urged the ILO and the Committee of Experts to put pressure on the Government and employers to stop the current outrage, amend anti-worker laws and restore the application of Convention No. 87 in Bangladesh, in order to ensure a healthy and democratic trade union atmosphere.

An observer representing the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF) said that, in June 2006, the Conference Committee had requested the Government of Bangladesh to eliminate obstacles to trade union activities in EPZs, prevent interfer- ence in trade union affairs and set lower limits for trade union registration and recognition. Two years later, freedom of association had in reality been eliminated following the outlawing of trade union activity under the emergency regulations imposed in January 2007. For 17 months, trade unions had been prevented from organizing, meeting members and even holding statutory meetings for the renewal of the mandates of their leaders, and the Government was now proposing even higher thresholds for trade union recognition. As a direct result, worker exploitation had intensified and, in the absence of worker representation, near anarchy prevailed when tensions mounted because of the frequent late payment of wages, cheating on overtime pay, and the regular aggressions against workers.

For the past year and a half, every week had brought new reports of unrest arising from extreme exploitation. The newspapers today had run reports of 50,000 garment workers damaging 50 factories after one worker had been killed. The previous day had seen reports of hundreds of garment workers rioting and forcing closure of 20 factories because they were being paid below the minimum wage and cheated on overtime. This was what happened when workers' representation was repressed and workers went leaderless. Workers in EPZs had gone largely unrepresented during the 20 years of EPZs' existence. Repeated promises had been made to grant EPZ workers freedom of association, but those promises had been broken, and workers were as far away as ever from being able to combine and bargain freely. Suppression of workers' rights had resulted in a legal minimum wage of less than 80 cents a day, or US$22 per month, which was well below the United Nations "absolute poverty" level. Workers now spent 70 per cent of their wages on rice alone.

The Government itself admitted that only 51 per cent of garment companies met the minimum standards on wages and basic working conditions. Labour inspectors had reported 37,033 labour law violations in 2006 and 48,291 in 2007, but cases filed against errant companies had fallen from 5,684 in 2006 to only 428 in 2007 - and this at a time when the garment industry was booming. The garment sector expected exports of US$11 billion in 2008, with inward investment in EPZs predicted to top US$1 billion.

He appreciated the difficulties faced by the caretaker Government in rescuing Bangladesh from the political inaction and corruption of past decades, but the workers were not responsible for the situation, and yet they were being penalized through the denial of their rights, impoverishment and inhuman treatment. He cited numerous examples of detention and maltreatment of trade unionists and of abuse of workers, including coercion to work extremely long hours, leading to death in certain cases.

Not surprisingly, labour unrest had become widespread. Indeed, in February, a deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Labour and Employment had admitted that the "illtreatment of workers and wrong handling of issues" was one of the main reasons of labour unrest. The chief inspector of factories had agreed that agitation was natural when workers were not being paid their wages. But instead of promoting mature industrial relations through dialogue based on freedom of association and the right to bargain, the caretaker Government was acting to limit long-term worker empowerment, both inside and outside EPZs.

Appearing to act under pressure from investors in EPZs, as well as domestic industry, the Government was proposing Labour Code amendments outlawing trade union offices within 200 metres of factories; preventing anyone not trained by the Government from assuming trade union office; removing the need for labour court approval for the cancellation of trade union registration; and increasing from 30 to 50 per cent the percentage of members needed for trade union recognition. The proposals were in clear violation of Convention No. 87 and the conclusions of the Conference Committee.

Garment workers in Bangladesh, who were mainly women, should not be allowed to drop further into serfdom. The ILO could not let Bangladesh drive trade unions out of existence. The Conference Committee's report should include a special paragraph on Bangladesh demanding the full application of the principles of freedom of association, including in EPZs; the dropping of false charges against trade union leaders and activists and the cessation of campaigns of harassment against trade union activity; and the full application of the law in every factory. In addition, the ILO should fully investigate, through a high-level mission, the labour rights situation in Bangladesh with a view to offering technical assistance to redraft the Labour Law.

The Government representative of Bangladesh expressed appreciation of the comments made by certain speakers and wished to reply to some of the issues raised during the discussion of the case. As admitted by trade union leaders, it had been necessary for the caretaker Government to hold the political parties responsible for the role that they had played in the crisis affecting the country. In certain cases, trade union leaders had been involved in that crisis and would therefore also be tried for any crimes committed. However, he emphasized that due process was being followed and that any trials would be for committing crimes and not for running trade union activities. He added that the caretaker Government had entered into discussions with the political parties, and more recently with trade unions with a view to broadening the consultation process. He recalled that elections would be held in 2008 and that the newly elected Government would undoubtedly withdraw many of the measures that had been taken over the past months, including the withdrawal of measures suspending the application of Conventions Nos 87 and 98. He further recalled that the Labour Law of 2006, which had been adopted after a consultation process lasting 14 years, was already subject to a process of amendment to bring it into line with the Convention. Furthermore, in view of the need to give enterprises which invested in EPZs the necessary time, under the terms of the agreement signed with employers, trade union activities would resume fully in EPZs by 2010. He noted in this respect that, although workers enjoyed better conditions in EPZs, there had also been unrest at internationally managed EPZ factories. This was a cause of concern for the High-Level Crisis Management Committee, which included worker representatives. It should also be noted that inspectors covered EPZs and that labour regulations had been prepared and would start applying in such zones. With reference to minimum wages, he referred to the efforts to extend minimum wage provisions to other sectors, including tea plantation workers. In conclusion, he expressed the hope that Bangladesh would have a Parliament by 2009 which would be able to take measures to improve the implementation of ILO Conventions.

The Employer members urged the Government to make efforts to translate the provisions of the Convention into law as soon as possible. They also called on the Govern- ment to provide all the information requested by the Committee of Experts as soon as possible. The Employer members recognized that the Government had had recourse to the technical assistance of the Office in the past and requested the Government representative to specify whether the Government was prepared to request assistance on the problems highlighted by the Committee of Experts in the present case.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for his reply, as well as the Committee of Experts for its very detailed analysis of the application of Convention No. 87 in Bangladesh, both with regard to trade union rights in EPZs and the new Labour Law 2006. The reaction of the caretaker Government that responsibility for the allegations rested with previous Governments was foreseeable. However, it should be noted that the new Government had not made any effort to improve the situation. On the contrary, it was using the situation of the state of emergency to seriously jeopardize all trade union rights. Moreover, the legislation currently under consideration regulated trade union activity in an even more restrictive manner.

This was a case of serious and persistent failure to comply with the fundamental rights of workers for two decades, which was giving rise to a very explosive social condition and which also endangered much of the country's economy. For all these reasons, the Worker members fully endorsed the conclusions of the Committee of Experts concerning both EPZs and the revision of the Labour Law 2006. In addition, it was necessary, as a matter of urgency, to call on those responsible to put an end to the persistent attacks on freedom of association and trade union rights. The question arose as to whether the situation would change after the election of a new Government. In the light of past experience, doubts remained.

In 2006, the Committee had decided to include a special paragraph in its report for non-compliance with Convention No. 98. Following the refusal to receive technical assistance from the Office and also considering the close relationship between Conventions Nos 87 and 98, the serious allegations of failure to comply with Convention No. 87, and the deterioration of the situation since 2006, the Worker members requested the Government to accept a high-level technical assistance mission.

The Government representative of Bangladesh emphasized that a detailed report was being prepared on all the issues raised by the Committee of Experts so that it could be submitted in due course. With regard to the question of technical assistance, he believed that it would be more logical for the Government to assess where such assistance was needed before going on to request it. Moreover, he did not see the need to include the case in a special paragraph of the Committee's report. He recalled that certain technical missions had been received by the country a few years ago and that a tripartite consultation process was being developed. He therefore considered that it would be better to wait until the new Parliament was in place in 2009. The Government of Bangladesh was accordingly prepared to accept ILO assistance, but needed to work out the areas in which such assistance was needed. He emphasized that his Government was not refusing such assistance.

The Employer and Worker members, in light of the response of the Government representative, called for the present case to be set out in a special paragraph of the Committee's report.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1999, Publication: 87th ILC session (1999)

The Government has supplied the following information:

The Government of Bangladesh has already given detailed replies to the questions raised by the Committee on Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations and reiterates the replies already furnished to these Committees. However, as desired by the Committee of Experts, the Government would like to give the following further clarification and information:

Managerial and administrative function

The personnel employed for managerial and administrative functions are part of management and as such during collective bargaining, with the workers' representatives (CBA), such staff shall be obliged to negotiate on behalf of the employers. Because of this law and practice position, the inclusion of managerial and administrative staff in the definition of "worker" permitting them to join trade unions (workers' organizations) should be incompatible with tripartism. Article 38 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of Bangladesh guarantees the right to freedom of association to all citizens including the managerial and administrative staff, subject only to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of morality or public order. The substance of the right to associate covers any legitimate profession, occupation, trade, vocation or calling, and no restrictions foreseen under article 38 of the Constitution have so far been applied. Managerial and administrative staff come within the definition of "employer" under section 2(viii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969, and in that capacity they can form their trade union under section 2(vi) of the IRO as well. The Committee of Experts queries how, since article 38 of the Constitution applies to citizens only, non-citizens carrying out managerial or administrative functions are able to exercise the right of association. This is a complicated legal issue and needs to be examined in detail by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. The correct legal practice will be determined in consultation with this Ministry and will be transmitted to the Committee of Experts in due course. Information on the number and size of associations in the public and private sectors that have been established to further the occupational interests of those carrying out managerial and administrative functions is being collected and will be sent to the Committee of Experts in due course.

About the exclusion of the government servants and the workers of the Security Printing Press from trade unions, it is stated that all such matters are still under examination by the Labour Code Review Committee, a tripartite body which has been given the responsibility to review the draft Comprehensive Labour Code prepared by the National Labour Laws Reforms Commission. The Review Committee is working regularly, and its latest meeting was held on 4 March 1999. The Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has remarked that the Government has been referring to the making of the new Comprehensive Labour Code for a number of years. The Government hopes that the Committee appreciates that the proposed Labour Code will compile 44 labour laws into one comprehensive code and as such it is a gigantic task. About the exclusion of the staff of the Security Printing Press from trade unions, it is further said that they are engaged in confidential work and allowing them to form trade unions presents grave risks. Certain provisions in the Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1979, which require that government servants shall be obliged to receive prior permission from the authorities to issue publications on matters other than culture, sports, development works and scientific matters are also receiving the attention of the Labour Code Review Committee. In addition, the matter needs to be and will be examined by the Ministry of Establishment which is the competent authority to decide matters affecting the rights and privileges of government servants. The outcome of all such examination will be forwarded to the Committee of Experts in due course.

Restrictions regarding holding trade union office

The Committee of Experts has observed that section 7-A(I)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969, prevents persons who are not current or former employees of an establishment or group of establishments during the previous year from becoming members or officers of a trade union in an establishment or group of establishments. It also noted that section 3 of Act No. 22 of 1990, which provides that a worker dismissed for misconduct shall not be entitled to become an officer of a trade union, entails the risk of interference by the employer through the dismissal of trade union members or leaders for exercising legitimate trade union activities. The Committee has urged the Government to take measures to amend the provisions to bring them into conformity with the Convention. The Committee is informed that the employer cannot dismiss a worker in an arbitrary manner without giving him an opportunity to show cause and without being heard. The IRO, 1969, does not give the employer any chance of arbitrary interference. Any dismissal of a worker for trade union activities, under section 15 of the IRO, 1969, would be an unfair labour practice and a punishable offence for the employer. Besides, an aggrieved worker can also have recourse to judicial redress in the labour court. The Government is of the opinion that the workers have full freedom to elect their representatives and consequently no amendment to the aforesaid legislative provisions is required. The Committee of Experts is urged to appreciate that there is no contradiction between the present Bangladesh law and the Convention. The Committee is also informed that this matter, too, will be placed before the Labour Code Review Committee for examination in the true spirit of tripartism.

Excessive external supervision

The Committee has expressed the view that there does not appear to be any limit on the powers of the Registrar of Trade Unions under Rule 10 of the Industrial Relation Rules, 1977, to enter trade union premises and inspect documents, etc., and that this power is not subject to judicial review. Accordingly, the Committee has asked the Government to amend this provision to bring it into conformity with the Convention. The Government again reiterates its replies that many times the general members of trade unions are deprived of their rights by union executives and it is to safeguard the interests of the general members of trade unions that Rule 10 was made. Besides, the abuse of authority and excesses, if any, of the Registrar of Trade Unions, are offences, and the aggrieved union can seek judicial redress in the appropriate court of law. The Registrar of Trade Unions has always used his powers of inspection with due discretion, and there has been no allegation about abuse of authority by the Registrar. While the rights of the trade unions to function freely are recognized, the necessity of regulating the trade union activities cannot be dispensed with in the interests of safeguarding the general workers' rights.

Registration requirements

The Committee has reiterated that sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which impose a minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments for initial and continued union registration is not in conformity with Article 2 of the Convention and, therefore, measures should be taken to rectify this. The Government reported that the 30 per cent membership requirement has checked the multiplicity of trade unions, whose mushroom growth is obviously counterproductive for workers. As such, amendment to the provisions would serve no useful purpose, the Government considers that the spirit of such provisions of the IRO conform to the Convention. The Committee of Experts has further pointed out that the Committee on Freedom of Association has raised other related concerns, namely, that there is no legal provision enabling the registration of a trade union on a nationwide basis and that, pursuant to a court decision, registration of unions comprising workers from different establishments owned by different employers is prohibited. The Committee would appreciate that such a judicial ruling given by the highest court, the Supreme Court, is binding upon the Government. However, such provisions of the IRO are also under examination by the Labour Code Review Committee.

Export processing zones

The Committee of Experts has held that the Export Processing Zones Authority Act, 1980, which has made the zones union free, is a serious violation of the important right to unionize and urged the Government to take measures without further delay to ensure that workers in Export Processing Zones (EPZs) are entitled to exercise all rights under the Convention.

The Committee of Experts is informed in this regard that although the workers employed in the Export Processing Zones cannot, at present, form trade unions, they have their associations and solve their grievances through direct dialogue. In fact, the workers in the EPZs enjoy much better service conditions and fringe benefits than workers in other areas. Experience has shown that the workers in EPZs never raised an issue against the employers in matters of wages, service conditions, etc. Union-free EPZs have attracted foreign direct investment which has resulted in considerable job creation (and employment), and workers are amongst the major beneficiaries. In view of the low level of development, EPZs in Bangladesh are an economic necessity. The principles set forth in the Declaration of Philadelphia are the basis of ILO Conventions and article V of this Declaration states, inter alia, that the manner of application of such principles must be determined with due regard to the stage of social and economic development reached by each people. Thus, in the economic interests of a least developed country like Bangladesh, union-free EPZs are considered essential for job creation and employment.

Restrictions on rights to strike

As regards the Committee's views on the restrictive provisions on strikes and its advice to the Government to amend the legislation to restrict the right to strike only in genuine crisis situations, the replies given on earlier occasions are reiterated. The Committee of Experts is also assured that trade union activities in the banking sector have not been suspended. In fact, no restrictions are imposed on legal strikes and the restrictions are applied on illegal strikes only. When strikes are prohibited by the Government, the Government must immediately refer the matter to the labour court for adjudication. Penalties, including imprisonment for illegal industrial action, can be imposed only after a judicial verdict is passed in accordance with law and, as such, the authorities cannot resort to any penal action arbitrarily.

Bangladesh's proneness to natural calamities is well known to the ILO. Even as late as 1998, the worst flood in the country caused massive damage to agricultural and physical infrastructures. Rehabilitation and reconstruction of the flood damage will take years. In such pressing circumstances, the restrictions on strikes and other forms of industrial action are quite justified and are in conformity with the justification permitted by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee will be provided with information about the reported rejection of several applications for registration by trade unions in the textile, metal and garment sectors, as requested.

Finally, the Government informs the Committee of Experts that all the points that it raised are being examined by the tripartite Labour Code Review Committee and the Committee of Experts will be informed of the decision in due course. The Government welcomes ILO technical assistance for advice as to how the Government can implement the Convention in its national situation.

In addition, a Government representative emphasized that Bangladesh was a pluralist and democratic country fully committed to the values of pluralism and democracy. In matters of the making and implementation of policy, it sought to operate in a system of total transparency, which was very much a part of its traditional cultural and political ethos. Although proud of this tradition, he was well aware that, like any other society, his country was not perfect. In the field covered by the Committee today, in Bangladesh, as elsewhere, much remained to be achieved. However, more than others, Bangladesh was cognizant of its deficiencies. It was also aware that some gaps still remained between elements of the existing legislation and the requirements of the Convention. It was, therefore, grateful to the Committee for having drawn attention to some of these issues, which it wished to address today with the utmost seriousness.

For that purpose, he informed the Committee that the Ministry of Labour had decided to establish a mechanism within the Ministry to thoroughly examine the issue and make recommendations to correct any discordance between the Convention and the existing legislation. He expressed confidence that this measure would take Bangladesh a long way forward towards the achievement of its goals. It had proven its good will by providing a point-by-point response to all the issues which had been raised by the Committee of Experts. He hoped that the answers would give satisfaction. However, if some of the members of the Committee were not satisfied by the information provided, that would not be due to any lack of intention or political commitment on the part of his country. It had to be appreciated that the constraints faced by the country were many and varied. However, he expressed the conviction that Bangladesh could achieve its desired goals, particularly since its authorities assigned the highest priority to democratizing every aspect of society. He then referred to the written information provided by the Government.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative for the information which he had provided. They noted that the Committee of Experts had been making comments on the case since 1983 and that the Conference Committee had discussed it in both 1995 and 1997. However, it still appeared that many of the elements of the case were the same as in 1995.

The Committee of Experts had raised several issues relating to various aspects of the labour law in the country. The first of these concerned the right of association of managerial and administrative personnel. The essential issue in this respect concerned the manner in which such categories of staff were determined. The Committee of Experts had also requested information on the situation in relation to foreign workers who were working at the managerial level. In the written information provided, the Government indicated that the issue would be examined by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. The comments of the Committee of Experts had given the impression that there were limitations on the right to associate of such personnel and the Government should, therefore, be requested to provide precise information in this regard. The issue revolved around the application of article 38 of the Constitution, which contained certain restrictions. However, the Government had stated that none of these restrictions had so far been applied. Information was needed on the actual situation in this regard.

The second question concerned the exclusion of public servants and workers in the Security Printing Press from the right to establish trade unions. The Government continued to state that this matter was still being reviewed by the tripartite Labour Code Review Committee, which was a mechanism designed to propose corrections in the law. However, the Government had been making the same statement for some time. How long would it be necessary to wait? Did the Government intend to change the law and, if so, when? It had been referring to the work of the Labour Code Review Committee in this respect for at least five years.

The third issue concerned the restrictions placed on the holding of trade union office. The Committee of Experts was concerned in particular by the restrictions on the holding of trade union office by workers who had been dismissed for misconduct, which raised the possibility of the arbitrary dismissal of trade union members. It would be necessary for the Committee to be provided with information on the practical impact of this provision in terms of the number of cases of arbitrary dismissal of trade union leaders.

A fourth problem concerned the powers of supervision of trade unions of the Registrar of Trade Unions. The principal concern raised by the Committee of Experts in this regard was that there did not appear to be any limits on the powers of the Registrar to enter premises and inspect documents and that these powers were not subject to judicial review. Although the Government representative had referred to the possibility of obtaining judicial redress, this did not constitute a limit on the exercise of these powers in the sense referred to by the Committee of Experts.

With reference to the requirement that a trade union have a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments for its initial and continued registration, the Employer members stated that the percentage was set at an arbitrarily high level and certainly constituted an obstacle to union representation, in particular where there was no system of exclusive representation. Once again, the Government had stated that the matter was under review by the Labour Code Review Committee.

On the question of the restrictions placed on the establishment of unions in export processing zones (EPZs), the Committee of Experts had underlined that freedom of association was a fundamental right which could not be denied, even temporarily. Once again, amendments had been proposed by the National Labour Laws Reforms Commission, but the questions remained as to how long the process would take.

With reference to the issue of the right to strike in Bangladesh, the Employer members referred to their well-known position on the question. The problem was once again that, on the matters of concern to the Committee of Experts, no information had been provided on the practical impact of the policy adopted by the Government. The information available did not permit any picture to be formed of the extent to which the right to strike was restricted in the country.

The large number of issues involved in the case did not lead to any easy conclusions. A number of the issues were being examined by various review bodies, but no concrete proposals appeared to have been made. It was clear that the Government could not continue to hide behind these review bodies forever as an excuse for legislative change. Something, therefore, needed to be done. In view of the lack of information to provide a basis for evaluating the impact of national policies on freedom of association in the country, the Government should be urged to provide verifiable and concrete information on the issue under examination.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for the information he had provided to the Committee and assured him that the Worker members were fully aware of the challenges faced by his Government due to the low level of development of the country. However, they wished to remind him that the Convention established core human rights which applied equally to all countries, regardless of their level of development. Indeed, it was the long-held view of both the Worker members and the ILO as a whole that respect for freedom of association would contribute greatly to the development of Bangladesh, rather than posing an obstacle to it.

Having listened carefully to the statement of the Government representative, and despite his tone of sincerity, the Worker members were not convinced that any new information had been provided of which the Committee had not already been aware when the case had been discussed in both 1995 and 1997. Unfortunately, it appeared clear that none of the action promised by the Government in the past had materialized.

The tripartite National Labour Laws Reforms Commission referred to by the Government representative had been established in 1992. The Committee had been assured three years later in 1995 that the work of the above Commission was proceeding and in 1997 had expressed the hope that it would rapidly complete its work on revising the labour legislation and that the new Labour Code would take into account the numerous and repeated observations of the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee. But another two years had elapsed without any further progress. Moreover, the Committee had been informed that another mechanism would be created within the Ministry of Labour to make recommendations to bring the law into compliance with the Convention. The relationship between this new mechanism and the National Labour Law Reforms Commission was unclear and the Worker members requested additional information from the Government in this regard.

The Committee of Experts had confirmed the lack of progress and had once again strongly criticized several discrepancies between national legislation and Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. In particular, it had noted the denial of the right to organize for workers in EPZs, restrictions on the right of association of public servants, the absence of legislation granting the right to organize to persons carrying out managerial or administrative functions, and the requirement for unions to have a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the workers employed in the establishment in order to be registered. The Committee of Experts had also criticized the excessive external supervision by the authorities over the internal affairs of trade unions, as well as the requirement to be employed in an establishment or group of establishments in order to hold trade union office and the prohibition on workers who had been dismissed for misconduct from standing for trade union office. Further criticisms included the restrictions on the right of workers' organizations to organize their activities and formulate their programmes without interference by the public authorities and the impossibility to register a trade union on a nationwide basis or a union which was composed of workers from different establishments owned by different employers. In particular, the Committee of Experts had referred to the excessive restrictions on the right to strike. The Committee of Experts had been commenting for many years on this long list of serious violations.

With regard to the issue of excessive external supervision, the Worker members repudiated the Government's argument that the general members of trade unions were often deprived of their rights by union executives and that supervision was to safeguard their interests. The experience of many Worker members was that workers were normally very effective in controlling their leaders, provided that transparent and democratic trade union structures were in place. It was structures of this nature that the Government should be encouraging through its labour laws if it were truly serious about safeguarding workers against the abuse of power by union leaders.

The Worker members also found the comments made by the Government representative concerning EPZs to be troubling. The Government had insisted that it was in the economic interests of a least-developed country such as Bangladesh to have union-free EPZs for the purposes of job creation and attracting foreign direct investment. This statement was a blatant example of the downward pressure on labour standards produced by globalization when the rules governing the process were incomplete and did not address core labour standards. This was a matter of particular concern since a large and increasing segment of the manufacturing sector in Bangladesh, particularly in the textile and garment industry, was located in EPZs, which were multiplying rapidly throughout the country and employing hundreds of thousands of workers. The Committee on Freedom of Association had examined complaints of violations, particularly in the garment and textile sector, where trade unions were unable to obtain registration. Many of the factories in the sector were quite small and employed fewer than 100 workers. In addition to the absence of freedom of association in EPZs, the combination of the 30 per cent requirement for initial and continued registration as an enterprise trade union and the prohibition on organizing a union on a nationwide basis, or a union composed of workers from different establishments owned by different employers, effectively deprived much of the manufacturing sector of the right to freedom of association.

Another example of the downward pressure exerted by globalization on labour standards was the reports that the World Bank had urged the Government to take legislative measures to prevent bank workers organizing a trade union. Despite the assurances provided by the Government that trade union activities in the sector had not been suspended, there had been press reports that trade union activities in the Central Bank had been banned due to what the Government had termed excessive union activities. Problems had also been reported in other commercial banks, both private and public. The Worker members called on the Government representative to provide more up-to-date information on the matter.

The Committee of Experts had once again repeated the comments that it had been making for many years concerning the limitations on freedom of association in the public sector and had urged the Government to take the necessary measures without any further delay to ensure that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, were guaranteed the right to organize. Despite the request for the Government to indicate any progress made in this regard, the Worker members were not convinced that the Government was taking the recommendations of the Committee of Experts seriously.

Finally, with regard to the right to strike, the Worker members requested the Government representative to provide information on the number of legal economic strikes which took place in the country each year and on the number of occasions on which an employer had been punished for violating laws in relation to workers engaged in industrial actions, either legal or illegal. Such statistics would provide a clear indication in practice as to whether, as claimed by the Government representative, there were really no restrictions on legal strikes.

The Worker members recalled that Bangladesh had ratified the Convention 27 years ago. The lack of progress in its application in law and practice for so many years was deeply troubling, particularly in view of the indication provided once again today that the Government had no intention of applying the Convention in certain key areas which were not in conformity with its provisions. A credibility problem had now emerged in gauging the Government's true intentions. Unfortunately, its actions spoke louder that its words. In practice, freedom of association was restricted in the public sector, EPZs, much of the manufacturing sector and the services sector. These deep concerns should be stated in the Committee's conclusions in the strongest possible terms.

The Worker member of Japan recalled that the discrepancies between national law and the Convention noted by the Committee of Experts included the restrictions placed on the right of association of public servants. He emphasized in this respect that the Convention guaranteed the freedom of association of workers in both the public and private sectors, with the sole exceptions of such services as the army and the police. The Government had stated that the labour legislation was being reviewed, but the review in question had been going on for a number of years. No information had been provided as to whether this review process would include the principles of freedom of association in the public service. He urged the Government to complete the review as soon as possible, and to provide information on the specific aspects of freedom of association which needed to be guaranteed in law and practice.

He added that his trade union represented workers in the public service and that he had been dismayed to note that there had been no representative from Bangladesh at the recent Executive Committee meeting of Public Services International. The reason had been that the delegate in question had been unable to obtain an exit visa from Bangladesh. He, therefore, reminded the Government representative that the Convention guaranteed the right of affiliation to international organizations. This requirement of the Convention was clearly not being respected if trade union members were not permitted to participate in international meetings, which were of great importance to the workers' movement.

The Worker member of Pakistan, while appreciating the difficulties faced by the country and the efforts that were being made to promote democracy, drew the Government's attention to the need to apply the Convention in countries of all levels of development, since it contained principles which were the lifeblood of basic freedoms for all workers everywhere, including in EPZs. The country had undertaken the basic commitment to ratify the Convention and now needed to take the further step of implementing it fully. The Committee on Freedom of Association in a number of cases over the years had pointed to the gaps and contradictions between national law and practice and the principles of freedom of association. Although promises had been made that these shortcomings would be remedied and review bodies had been set up to examine the labour legislation, the same problems in relation to the application of the Convention continued to be listed by the Committee of Experts. Moreover, the Worker member of Japan had provided information which illustrated that the fundamental right of the affiliation of workers and employers to national and international organizations was not respected in practice. He, therefore, called upon the Government to take the necessary measures to give effect to its international obligations without delay.

A Worker member of Italy agreed that Bangladesh was a highly populated country, marked by economic difficulties and numerous natural catastrophes. However, the country had the possibility to go forward in development with respect to democracy. As made clear by the analyses and observations of the Committee of Experts, one of the pillars of democracy was the freedom of association. Out of 60 million workers in Bangladesh, 5 million were in the formal sector and, of these, 2 million were unionized but scarcely 20 per cent of these organizations at enterprise level were affiliated to registered, central national unions, authorized to bargain. A large part of the population did not have the right to organize and was thus excluded from collective bargaining: this section included public servants, tens of thousands of workers in export processing zones, all dependent workers in the informal sector and almost all workers in small and medium-sized enterprises. It was essential that the workers should be covered by a legislation which granted them the right to organize. This was essential for the stability and the democracy of the country. Bangladesh, which had ratified the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), should work towards this end by exercising tripartism.

In reply, the Government representative thanked the Worker and Employer members for pointing to a number of issues which were a cause of common concern. It was not possible to hide such problems in a modern technological world in which information could be exchanged so easily. His country was, therefore, being very frank in facing up to certain discrepancies between its law and practice and the Convention and was showing the political will to address the related problems. On a more personal note, he informed the Committee that associations of high-level qualified personnel were gradually emerging as major actors in the country.

He assured the members of the Committee that he had taken note of the issues which had been raised, including the delay in the review procedure. Unfortunately, it was not possible to indicate a time-frame for the work of revising the national labour legislation. However, when he returned to his country he would convey the concerns which had been expressed to the appropriate authorities, which would undoubtedly have the effect of speeding up the process. Finally, with regard to the right to strike, he noted that democratization had progressed very greatly over the past ten years and that the workers in Bangladesh did exercise the right to strike.

The Employer members, while appreciating the goodwill expressed by the Government representative, feared that such goodwill merely served to mask a situation in which no progress was being made at all. The message that he should take back to his Government was that the Committee was looking for concrete steps and real action in the process of reviewing the labour legislation. Information needed to be provided on the real situation in relation to freedom of association in the country. If information were not provided to show that progress was being made, the Committee might have to adopt a different attitude to the case in the future.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1997, Publication: 85th ILC session (1997)

A Government representative, referring to the observations made by the Committee of Experts, noted that freedom of association in Bangladesh was covered by the Constitution and trade union legislation, the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969. The trade union law covered only the organized sector, where between five and six million workers were employed. Other economic sectors were covered by the Constitutional provisions relating to freedom of association. Violations of this right could be submitted to the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, which was the highest judicial body in the country.

With reference to the right of association of persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions, he noted that the IRO allowed workers and employers to form trade unions without requesting prior authorization. Union membership was open to persons in factories, business, industries, shops and public sector corporations. Public servants in the Department of Telephone and Telegram and in the Department of Railways were also covered by the law. However, public servants in other government offices were not covered by the IRO. Moreover, persons in industrial and commercial establishments performing managerial and administrative functions could not join workers' trade unions. Such persons - who comprised approximately two per cent of the workforce - could form associations for the advancement of their rights and interests in accordance with Article 38 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, which gave every citizen the right to form an association or union subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of morality or public order. Persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions in the private sector therefore enjoyed the right of association.

On the question of the right of association of public servants, the speaker reiterated the view that the legislation of Bangladesh was in conformity with the requirements of the Convention. As stated in the Conference Committee in 1995, even though public servants were not covered by the IRO, they did have the right to form associations in order to advance their interests. Such associations held meetings, discussed the problems faced by their members and formulated demands for submission to the Government for negotiation. With regard to the exclusion of workers at the Security Printing Press and of public servants from the right to form trade unions, he maintained that the Constitution guaranteed their right to form associations to advance their causes.

The speaker noted that the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning restrictions on the range of persons who could hold office in trade unions had been answered by his Government in the Conference Committee in 1995. He reiterated that, except for workers dismissed for misconduct or convicted of the embezzlement of union funds, moral turpitude or unfair labour practice, every worker had the right to enjoy trade unions of their choice and to hold elected trade union office regardless of their age, sex or creed. Moreover, a worker dismissed for misconduct could seek redress against the management in a court of law. The admission of dismissed workers as either members or officers of trade unions might hinder normal trade union activities, as well as industrial peace and productivity, which might in turn frustrate the underlying purpose of trade unions and collective bargaining. In Bangladesh, dismissed workers were not elected to trade union office. However, section 7-A(1)(b) of the IRO promoted rather than restricted their right to choose their representatives.

In response to the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning external supervision, he stated that the IRO conferred certain quasi-judicial functions on the Registrar of Trade Unions. However, any act of the Registrar could be challenged in a court of law and the Registrar was not permitted by law to revoke the registration of a union without prior permission from the labour court. He did not agree with the observation made by the Committee of Experts that the procedure of supervision by the Registrar of trade union financial affairs should be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording guarantees of impartiality and objectivity, since any act of the Registrar could already be challenged in a court of law. Moreover, the constitution of a union at the time of its union's registration was always respected.

The Government representative added that the requirement that the membership of a trade union should consist of 30 per cent of the total number of workers concerned before it could be registered was necessary in view of the country's level of social, economic and political development. This measure helped to check the multiplicity of trade unions, which would affect adversely the interests of the workers. Under the existing provisions, up to three unions could be registered for each establishment. Moreover, the IRO included provisions governing the determination of collective bargaining agents. He did not consider that the 30 per cent requirement restricted the right of workers to organize. However, measures adapted to the situation might be taken in the near future. In this connection, he pointed out that Convention No. 87 did not address specifically the danger of a multiplicity of trade unions, but was concerned that workers should be free to establish organizations of their own choosing. If they formed too many organizations, they would weaken their position.

On the question of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones (EPZs), he stated that these workers were not deprived of their fundamental right of freedom of association as guaranteed under Article 38 of the Constitution. In the same way as other developing and less developing countries which were establishing EPZs for the purposes of economic development, Bangladesh had suspended the right to form trade unions in EPZs as a purely temporary measure under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. Indeed, workers in EPZs enjoyed better employment and working conditions, higher wages and very congenial labour management relations. The fact that no complaint had yet been received by the Government from any workers' association alleging that workers in EPZs had been deprived of their rights meant that they had accepted the reality of the situation. Any Convention was ratified with some flexibility to suit national conditions and EPZs were being developed in many other Asian countries. Economic development required the establishment of EPZs, but not at the cost of the social and economic welfare of workers. The Government was very much aware of its responsibility towards its citizens.

He added that the Government of Bangladesh had noted the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning restrictions on the right to strike. Although appreciating the observation of the Committee that it was mindful of the difficulties which might arise during an acute national crisis, he recalled that sections 28, 32(2), 32(4), 33(1), 57, 58 and 59 of the IRO had been examined by the National Labour Law Commission (NLLC), whose report was still under study by the Government. He added that the Government of Bangladesh would welcome the technical assistance of the ILO in any field related to the implementation of Convention No. 87.

The Workers' members deplored the fact that, despite the Government's statement in 1995, at the conclusion of which it had undertaken to provide the Committee of Experts with detailed information, little seemed to have been achieved on this subject. The seven questions raised by the Committee of Experts were not new and required the adoption of urgent measures by the Government to bring the situation into greater conformity with the principles of freedom of association. These matters had already been the subject of exhaustive discussion in 1995, in the same way that related problems concerning the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), had been addressed in 1994. In general, the Workers' members regretted that for many years the Committee of Experts had needed to make observations on important matters related to the fundamental principles of freedom of association. In 1994 and 1995, the Government of Bangladesh had referred to the discussions held in its tripartite national commission. It appeared that this body had submitted recommendations on several points, a number of which were contained in a Bill to amend the legislation, which had not yet been adopted. Most of the criticisms of the Committee of Experts in the case of Bangladesh concerned matters that needed to be respected by every country, irrespective of its level of social and economic development. These matters were also related to the campaign of the Director-General to promote the ratification and application of fundamental Conventions. The Workers' members were aware of the economic and social difficulties confronting Bangladesh.

Better collaboration between the public authorities and civil society, including the organizations of workers and employers, would contribute to combating poverty and social exclusion and could promote social justice and peace. Indeed, many of the problems relating to the application of the Convention had their roots in the tension between the public authorities and civil society in Bangladesh. With regard to the specific comments made by the Committee of Experts, the Workers' members regretted that the Government's report contained little relevant information on the right to organize of persons carrying out managerial or administrative functions, or of public servants. The Government referred laconically to the existence of two associations for public servants in the public sector and referred to other associations without mentioning them by name. Furthermore, the report did not contain information on the provisions guaranteeing the right to organize of managerial staff in the private sector. The Workers' members emphasized that this category of worker should be guaranteed the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, including the trade unions that covered other categories of workers. The concept of managerial functions needed to be defined precisely so as not to weaken the trade unions of other workers.

With regard to interference by the public authorities in the establishment and functioning of trade unions, they noted that the problems raised were of a serious nature and related to restrictions on the categories of persons who could hold trade union office, interference by the public authorities in the internal affairs of trade unions and excessive limitations on the establishment and operation of trade unions at the enterprise level.

With regard to external control, they regretted that the information provided to the Committee of Experts was insufficient to establish whether such control was limited to supervising the rules of trade unions and the application of the law, or whether such matters were subject to really impartial judicial control.

On the subject of the requirement for the membership of a trade union to include 30 per cent of the workers in an enterprise before it could be registered, they warned that this threshold raised serious problems in systems for the recognition of trade union organizations which were based in part or in whole on enterprise unions, with the risk that workers in small- and medium-sized enterprises would be excluded. They therefore emphasized the need to establish without delay procedures and provisions which promoted freedom of association, as set out in the Preamble to the ILO Constitution and in the Convention.

On the question of EPZs, they noted that the Government referred to the recommendations of the National Labour Law Commission (NLLC) and to a Bill and the fact that, anticipating certain amendments to the legislation, some workers appeared to be authorized to establish trade unions. Workers in EPZs and their organizations needed guarantees set out in specific legal provisions for the effective exercise of freedom of association. The protection of the rights of these workers was a major concern of national and international trade union movements and of the ILO, which had established a specific programme on this subject.

Furthermore, with regard to the right to strike, the procedures and provisions governing the exercise of the right to strike were such that, in practice, the very principle of the right to strike was jeopardized. They recalled the conclusions of the Conference Committee in 1995, which urged the Government to ensure that the procedures and provisions concerning strikes did not amount to a denial of this fundamental right, and they deplored the fact that the Government's response was confined to stating that it had noted the observations of the Committee of Experts. The powers of the Government to prohibit the right to strike, if it considered it contrary to the national interest, constituted a violation of the principles of freedom of association and were inadmissible in a democratic society. The national legislation reflected the gap between civil society and the public authorities. However, better collaboration between them could promote social peace and the emergence of a more stable industrial relations system.

In conclusion, the Workers' members called for the amendment as soon as possible of the Labour Code and other relevant laws to take into account all of the observations of the Committee of Experts and the recommendations of the national social partners. They urged the Government to provide detailed information to the Committee of Experts on all developments, and particularly on the work of the NLLC and any progress achieved in law and in practice. Finally, the Government should make as much use as possible of ILO technical assistance.

The Employers' members recalled that the application of Convention No. 87 by Bangladesh had been examined on three occasions during the 1990s by the Committee of Experts, and had been discussed by the Conference Committee in 1995. There were a number of important issues involved, which required individual examination.

With regard to the right of association of persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions in the public and private sectors, the important point was the manner in which these categories of persons were delimited. No specific information had been provided on this point by the Government representative. However, the Government's response to the comments of the Committee of Experts had made reference to two associations and the Committee of Experts in its comments had requested the Government to provide specific information on the number and size of any other such associations. The issue which arose in both the private and the public sector was that the persons in question might in practice be the representatives of employers. They could not therefore be members of unions at the same time, as they would then have to negotiate with themselves. The Government representative had stated that the category of persons concerned covered two per cent of all the workers involved, which appeared to be a reasonable number. Although those who were really managerial personnel could be excluded from the right to establish and join workers' unions, any who did not come into this category should be treated as normal workers. The Government should therefore be requested to provide further information on this point in an additional report.

With regard to the right of public servants to organize, the Employers' members noted that the draft Labour Code would appear to continue to deny this right to public servants and to restrict their right to issue publications. The Government representative had not provided very much information in this respect on whether it intended to change the proposed provisions.

On the subject of restrictions on the range of persons who could hold trade union office, the Employers' members noted that, among others, workers who were dismissed for misconduct could not hold such office. The Government representative had stated that this measure was designed to protect the activities of the trade unions. However, the Committee of Experts had pointed out that such legislation entailed a risk of interference by employers. The Committee of Experts had rightly requested the amendment of the relevant provisions to provide for greater flexibility in relation to the membership of trade unions and the holding of trade union office. What was required was a legal examination of the cases which had occurred in this respect, but the Committee of Experts had not requested more complete information on this point.

On the question of external supervision of the activities of trade unions, the Employers' members noted that the Registrar of Trade Unions enjoyed excessively broad powers, which included the right to examine many kinds of documents at any time, and not just on a periodical basis. In such cases there should be proper independent procedures to prevent any undue interference in the activities of trade unions. The Government representative had stated that such machinery existed. The Government should therefore be requested to provide additional information on the applicable provisions which determined and restricted the powers of the Registrar and provided for independent supervision of his activities.

With regard to the 30 per cent requirement, under which no trade union could be registered unless it had a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments concerned, the Employers' members noted that the status of trade unions could be withdrawn when membership fell below that level. This was an exaggerated restriction by the State which placed too great a restriction on freedom of association and prevented the creation of new trade union organizations. It was important to remember that most workers' organizations had started out with few members. Although the Convention did not contain specific provisions in this respect and it was for the State to set the necessary conditions, these conditions should not constitute obstacles to the development of new trade unions.

Turning to the question of export processing zones (EPZs), which existed in many countries, the Committee of Experts had reported that the NLLC had submitted a report on this subject which was being studied by the Government. This report, and a Bill on that matter, would be submitted to Parliament. Although the Government representative had not provided further details on the NLLC's report, he had claimed that workers in EPZs enjoyed better conditions of work than the rest of the country's workforce and were not unhappy with their situation. Although the Convention did not state that the same labour law had to apply throughout a country, or particularly in EPZs, it did require the observance of the principles of freedom of association on a nationwide basis.

Turning to the comments of the Committee of Experts on restrictions on the right to strike in Bangladesh, the Employers' members referred to their own position on this question and noted that there was no basis in the Convention for measuring the extent of any restrictions that were imposed on this right. The provisions of the Convention would be infringed where the right to strike was constrained to such an extent that it no longer existed. The Employers' members recalled that strikes could have serious repercussions on the national economy, particularly in view of the growing interdependence of the productive and service sectors. It was therefore relatively frequent for governments to establish a certain threshold for the proportion of the workers who needed to give prior approval to the calling of a strike in order to prevent disruption of the productive process. In this case, the level was set at three quarters of the workers concerned, which seemed reasonable. The Committee of Experts had also referred to the possibility of prohibiting a strike if it were considered prejudicial to the national interest or where it involved a public utility service. The Employers' members recognized that these expressions were not clear. However, the comments of the Committee of Experts were based on its narrow interpretation of the essential services. The Government should be requested to provide further information on the application of the relevant legal provisions in practice and the cases, and circumstances, in which these provisions had been invoked. However, this had not been done in the report of the Committee of Experts. The Employers' members recalled in this respect that it was the fundamental right of every State to determine the extent to which certain limits should be applied to the right to strike for the public good.

In view of the complexity and large number of issues involved, it was not possible to arrive at conclusions, in this case, easily. Further information should therefore be requested in the form of a written report that covered all of the questions raised in detail. The Government should also specify the areas in which change was seriously being contemplated so that these points could be taken up in future and the changes adopted could be evaluated.

The Workers' member of Burkina Faso recalled that, for many years, the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts had asked Bangladesh to modify its legislation and practice to conform fully to the principles of freedom of association. She regretted that, despite these appeals, numerous and grave violations of these principles had again been committed, including acts of violence against the members and leaders of trade unions. By way of example, she stated that the Independent Union of Textile Workers of Bangladesh and its members, the large majority of which were women, had been the target of acts of aggression on the part of the public authorities. In August 1995, the leaders of this union had filed a complaint with the investigating official, but it had not been received. Following the institution of judicial action in conjunction with the Association of Exporters of Bangladesh, the Dhaka headquarters of this union had been ransacked in November 1995 and the members had been subjected to violence. Furthermore, the members and leaders of a union of a textiles enterprise in Dhaka had been the target of threats and harassments by the public authorities throughout 1995 and 1996. In the month of June 1996, the competent authority had refused, for the second time, to officially register this union. The speaker noted with concern that, generally, when workers registered complaints with the competent public authorities, they were not listened to and did not get any cooperation in finding an acceptable solution for the problems they faced. She regretted that the Government's report did not provide any information on the measures taken in this regard since the last report examined by the Committee in 1995. Finally, concerning export processing zones, she stressed the importance of these workers, the great majority of which were women working in miserable conditions, benefitting from the right to organize without restrictions or discrimination of any kind. She highly doubted that the absence of complaints by these workers effectively signified that they did not have any complaints, as the Government had indicated. Finally, she earnestly requested the Government of Bangladesh to modify without delay its law and practice in order to bring them into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association, and in particular with the provisions of the Convention.

The Workers' member of the United States emphasized the serious nature of the case, which concerned many of the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, including the right of association of public servants, the denial of the right to organize in EPZs, restrictions on persons who could hold trade union office, interference by public authorities in the affairs of trade unions and excessive restrictions on the right to strike. He therefore regretted that the Government representative had said very little that was new since the Committee had last reviewed the case in 1995. With reference to the statement by the Workers' member of Burkina Faso concerning the continued violation of the Convention with regard to workers in the garment industry, he recalled that there were over 800,000 workers in the industry, approximately 80 per cent of whom were women. Many garment factories were located in EPZs, where trade unions were illegal. The Government representative had made no apologies for this fact and indeed appeared to be informing the Committee that the practice would continue. This matter would need to be followed very closely.

The speaker added that during the past few years there had been a courageous effort to organize independent unions in garment factories and to bring those workplace unions into a single industrial federation, the Bangladesh Independent Garment Union (BIGU), which was independent of any political party, employers and the Government. This attempt to organize an independent, democratic industrial federation from the ground up would, if successful, be of truly historic significance for Bangladeshi workers. However, up to now the Government had refused to legally recognize BIGU, in clear violation of the Convention. He noted that this effort to organize the workers had coincided with the negotiation of an agreement with the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) for the elimination of child labour in the garment industry. The ILO had played a role in bringing about the agreement and in its implementation. BIGU was an ardent supporter of the agreement and had established the first schools for the children rescued from the garment factories. However, there were many forces in Bangladesh endeavouring to ensure that BIGU's organizing effort would fail. Some of the many personal sacrifices made by the workers in this respect were recorded in the ICFTU 1997 Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights. In particular, he pointed out that the garment industry was a major exporter producing largely for well-known multinational companies based in the United States and other countries. This case brought to light the responsibilities, not only of the Bangladeshi Government and factory operators, but also of multinational enterprises to ensure that the fundamental human rights contained in ILO Conventions were respected. Any denial of this responsibility would only strengthen the growing forces that were opposed to the expansion of international trade, economic integration and globalization. Full implementation of the Convention by the Government, with the active support and assistance of multinational enterprises, would play an important role in resisting such protectionist forces and ensuring that these processes benefitted as many people as possible in Bangladesh and elsewhere, and not just the most privileged. Unfortunately, much still needed to be done in this respect, as shown by this case.

The Workers' member of India agreed that the case raised matters of serious concern. As a neighbour of Bangladesh, he received constant reports that trade union rights were not respected in that country. Although the Government representative had stated that trade unions could go to court to protect their rights, this was not always possible in practice. He referred to a case of the dismissal of workers in 1996, in which the workers concerned had endeavoured to take action through the courts. However, the trade union representatives who had assisted them had been told to leave their jobs, been beaten up and offered different jobs on condition that they did not go to court. It was therefore not true to say that workers and their representatives could obtain protection for their rights through the courts in Bangladesh.

Recalling the statement of the Government representative concerning the right of association of public servants, he warned that this statement raised the issue of the difference between trade unions and associations. The latter did not have the same rights as trade unions and it could not therefore be claimed that public servants in Bangladesh enjoyed the right to freedom of association. On the issue of the 30 per cent minimum requirement for membership of a trade union before it could be registered, he pointed out that this level was set much lower in most other countries. Although the Government representative claimed that the reason for the measure was to prevent a multiplicity of unions, its real objective was to raise obstacles to the establishment of trade unions in general. Moreover, the situation in EPZs in Bangladesh was also very serious. The message disseminated to multinational enterprises by the national authority responsible for promoting these zones emphasized the fact that the law prohibited the formation of trade unions. This was proof enough that the Government did not respect the right to freedom of association or collective bargaining in EPZs. Another anti-trade union measure that was not accepted by the trade unions of other countries was the broad powers of the Registrar to interfere with their activities through inspections of trade union offices, documents and staff.

On the question of the range of persons who could hold office in trade unions, he noted that workers could be dismissed for unfair labour practices, without such practices being specified in detail in the legislation. This gave the Government broad powers, for example, to dismiss trade union leaders when it so wished. Other serious constraints on freedom of association were the requirement that 75 per cent of the workers concerned needed to give their consent to a strike and the possibility of prohibiting strikes either which lasted more than 30 days or which were considered prejudicial to the national interest. These measures constituted serious constraints on trade union rights and gave the Government wide powers to prohibit strikes. For example, it had been possible for the Government to prevent a strike by telephone workers by claiming that they worked in an essential service.

Although the Prime Minister of the country had come out in favour of the adoption of changes in these matters, no concrete action had yet been taken. It was necessary to amend the legal provisions and for measures to be taken with the support of workers' organizations. A request should therefore be made to the Government to take the necessary measures to achieve progress in the application of all aspects of the Convention before the Conference Committee met again next year.

The Workers' member of Greece considered that this was an example among others where a ratification of a Convention was of doubtful value as it was forgotten in practice. The content of the Committee of Experts' observation highlighted a strange concern for workers, who were mature adults who should be allowed freely to organize themselves. The explanation according to which workers could be fired for misconduct should be further clarified, as it would be a cause for concern if the right to determine what constituted misconduct rested in the hands of employers or of a governmental institution and not in the hands of the judiciary. In any event, the workers were not so stupid as to elect dishonest leaders. This provision should therefore be repealed. As regards the requirement of a three-quarters consenting majority to declare a strike, it constituted a blatant example of interference. The economic situation was often invoked as a reason for not applying standards, while experience showed that no country could prosper without respecting them. If the Government really was intent on applying the Convention, it should undertake to do so and this Committee would then, next year, be able to take note of any progress made. The dialogue in this Committee should not only be diplomatic in nature, but should give a voice to the workers not present here and who were unable to make themselves heard in their own country.

The Workers' member of Italy was of the opinion that, in spite of the sparse responses provided by the Government, the seven points raised by the Committee of Experts bore witness to a general and persistent violation of freedom of association. The provisions affected the right of the unions freely to choose their leaders and allowed for unjustified forms of intervention by the authorities on trade union premises. A complaint concerning violation of freedom of association submitted by a union of textile workers had resulted in severe conclusions by the Committee on Freedom of Association in this respect. The 30 per cent requirement amounted, in practice, to a bar to recruitment of new trade union members. Furthermore, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, permitted the firing of trade union leaders. As regards the denial of the right to organize in export processing zones, it should be recalled that, in 1992, the Government undertook to cease this practice. As for the restrictions on the right to strike in essential services, they should be determined through tripartite negotiations and not in an authoritarian way. The elections held last year bore witness to the will of this country to progress towards democracy. No such progress was possible, however, in the absence of respect for fundamental rights. The first stages of the joint programme between textile workers, UNICEF and the ILO to abolish child labour were encouraging; perhaps a similar type of programme could be of assistance to overcoming the obstacles to freedom of association.

The Workers' member of Colombia expressed his concern regarding the lack of information provided by the Government representative, especially since hopes had been raised that the principles of freedom of association would be fully respected. Concerns had been raised regarding the interference of the Government in the internal affairs of trade unions, particularly in the case of workers dismissed on grounds of misconduct who were then prevented from holding office in trade unions. In certain countries being a trade union member in itself can lead to unjust dismissal. Freedom of association and the right to strike had to be guaranteed in export processing zones, as well as in the public sector. These rights had to be respected throughout the world, and especially in developing countries. Despite the observations formulated by the Committee of Experts, there had been little progress and repression continued. He could only hope that next year would bring about genuine progress concerning the respect of workers' rights.

The Workers' member of Pakistan, pointing out that a new Government which had come into power last year had committed itself to respecting freedom of association, called upon the Government representatives to adhere to Convention No. 87. It was not only the ratification of a Convention but its implementation in letter and spirit that mattered. First of all, trade union rights in export processing zones as well as in rural areas needed to be respected. Secondly, the restrictions on trade unions to elect their office-bearers needed to be abolished, since freedom of association dictated that trade unions elect their representatives in full freedom without interference from the Government. As a result, section 7-A(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO), needed to be repealed. Finally, the requirement under the IRO that no trade union may be registered unless it had a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the workforce meant that it would be difficult to organize workers in a large establishment, and therefore needed to be removed. He hoped that the Government would take up the offer of technical assistance of the Office.

The Employers' member of India indicated that labour laws in Bangladesh and India were similar. Thus, while the Trade Union Act in India merely required a membership of seven workers to form a union, persons carrying out managerial and supervisory functions preferred to form associations, and be registered under the Societies Act, in view of the nature of their functions. Therefore, in Bangladesh, the restrictions placed on them under the IRO were justified. Similarly, the restrictions on the range of persons who could hold trade union office were justified so that the internal trade union leadership could grow. The 30 per cent requirement under the IRO had to be maintained so as to avoid the proliferation of trade unions which were neither in the interest of the industry, nor the workers. Finally, the right to strike was not an absolute right and should be subject to the interests of the State. The type of overprotective pro-worker regulation promoted in discussions here was eroding employers' rights to manage their enterprises; he hoped that this Committee would have a balanced view and keep in mind the entire industrial relations scenario.

The Employers' members recalled that the seven points which were taken up by the Committee of Experts did not all have the same importance and that new information was required and that the necessary changes should be carried out.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1995, Publication: 82nd ILC session (1995)

A Government representative stated that the Government of Bangladesh had replied to all the issues raised by the Committee of Experts last year and understood that the Committee of Experts had examined these replies as well as some further queries which appeared in this year's report. The Government had received a direct request and would attempt to reply by the required date. As to the observation made by the Committee of Experts, he noted that Bangladesh had a law allowing workers and employers to form trade unions without requesting prior authorization. Union membership was open to persons working in factories, businesses, industries, shops and public sector corporations. Public servants of the Department of Telephone and Telegraphs and the Department of Railways were also covered by this law. Public servants of other government offices were not covered by this Industrial Relations Ordinance.

The Committee of Experts had raised six objections, the first of which concerned persons performing managerial and administrative functions: they could not join workers' trade unions. These white-collar employees, comprising approximately 2 per cent of the workforce, could form associations for the advancement of their rights or interests. Due to their small numbers, they did not form associations in each establishment, but rather at the national level or along professional lines, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants or the Institute of Engineers. In this way, the guarantees provided under Article 2 of Convention No. 87 were exercised by persons in this professional category. He noted that the Committee of Experts had requested the Government to provide the legislation which allowed these groups of managerial staff to form their associations. The speaker confirmed that his Government would provide this information with its report in due time.

He then commented on the Committee of Experts' observations on freedom of association for public servants, who were excluded from the scope of the industrial relations law allowing workers and employers to form trade unions. There were, however, associations of different levels of cadres through which they promoted their own causes. The Bangladesh Civil Service Administration Association had the largest number of members, while another association existed for the non-cadres. Some staff, such as accountants and stenographers also had their own associations. These committees held meetings, discussed problems faced by members and formulated a charter of demands for submission to the Government for negotiation.

Recently, the speaker noted, the Government had been in contact with associations of public employees, both towards meeting demands and implementing government decisions regarding salaries and other benefits recommended in 1991. He then referred to the observation of the Committee of Experts concerning restrictions on eligibility for holding office in a trade union. Except for workers dismissed for misconduct or convicted of embezzlement of union funds, moral turpitude, or unfair labour practices, each worker was eligible to join a trade union of his choice and to hold elected office in the union, regardless of age, sex, caste, etc. The speaker noted that a worker dismissed for misconduct might seek revenge against the management. He considered that the admission of such dismissed workers, either as union members or officers, might hinder normal union activities as well as industrial peace and productivity. This might also defeat the very purpose of the union and of collective bargaining. In practice, in Bangladesh, dismissed workers were not elected to office in trade unions. The speaker considered that section 7-A(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, promoted rather than restricted the right of workers to choose their representatives.

In reply to the Committee of Experts' observations on external supervision, the speaker noted that, in Bangladesh, the Industrial Relations Ordinance conferred certain quasi-judicial functions on the Registrar of Trade Unions. Any act of the registrar could be challenged in a court of law. He further noted that the Registrar of Trade Unions was not allowed to revoke a union's registration without prior authorization from the labour court.

With regard to the 30 per cent requirement for initial or continued registration of a trade union, the speaker noted that the Committee of Experts had been informed on several occasions that this practice was necessary to check the multiplicity of trade unions in Bangladesh. Nevertheless, in an establishment meeting the 30 per cent requirement, up to three unions could be registered and there were provisions for determining a collective bargaining agent. The speaker considered that the multiple union registration provision brought the legislation into conformity with Convention No. 87.

The speaker then referred to the observation in which the Committee of Experts noted with regret that the law did not cover workers in the export processing zones. He noted that the National Labour Law Commission 1992 submitted a report on this question which was still being studied by the Government. Ultimately, this report would be submitted as a bill to Parliament.

The speaker concluded by mentioning that his Government would try to reply as accurately as possible to the points raised by the Committee of Experts this year.

The Employers' members stated that it was the first time that Convention No. 87 was being discussed in the case of Bangladesh and thanked the Government representative for having addressed directly the seven points raised by the Committee of Experts. They referred to the information contained in the report of the Committee of Experts concerning a review of labour legislation by a National Tripartite Commission, as well as the draft of a new Labour Code dealing with specific questions that had raised some doubts.

With reference to the seven points raised by the Experts they indicated that they continued to pose problems. As to persons carrying out managerial or administrative functions who were permitted to form their own associations, these persons were still subject to restrictions. Consequently, it was necessary to know whether this category of employees had, in reality, the possibility to freely form their own organizations. The Employers' members therefore hoped that the Government would provide detailed information in this regard in its report.

In addition, they requested that the Government indicate the specific restrictions on the rights of public servants to issue publications, as well as the extent of these restrictions in light of the comments of the Committee of Experts.

With respect to restrictions on the categories of persons who could hold office in trade unions, they believed that the text was too general and it was unacceptable that all dismissed workers were prevented from holding office.

In relation to excessive external supervision by the Registrar of Trade Unions to supervise trade union activities, they understood that the State would want to maintain some form of control such as supervision over the finances of trade unions. However, the general control should not be too broad. They requested further information on the legal recourse available to trade unions if such control had been too extensive.

In relation to the 30 per cent requirement, they noted that when workers wished to form a trade union organization in an establishment or in a group of enterprises, the Government believed that there was a danger of multiplicity of trade unions and this was the reason for the 30 per cent requirement. With regard to the risk of such proliferation, Convention No. 87 did not specifically address this issue but did provide that workers were free to set up organizations of their own choice. If workers formed too many organizations, they would weaken their own positions. The Employers' members wondered to what extent a State had the duty to protect workers from themselves. In a free society, such state protection should be strictly limited. The Government should review this issue and consider the recommendations made by the National Tripartite Commission in this regard.

As to export processing zones, they noted that the Government added very little to this issue and therefore it was necessary to wait for the information that it would provide in its report.

With regard to restrictions on the right to strike, which in the opinion of the Experts went beyond the envisaged situations and categories of workers, the Employers' members believed that the criterion of "essential services was too narrow". The State was responsible for the welfare of its citizens, and in developing countries, especially in difficult periods, a strike could cause unacceptable consequences even if the strike would not endanger life. For this reason a democratic State should assume its responsibilities and set the restrictions on the right to strike when essential services were jeopardized. Furthermore, Convention No. 87 did not contain any provisions in this regard.

Lastly, there were matters which needed careful thought and required legislative revision. For this reason, the Employers requested the Government to provide in its report detailed information on all of the points raised and stressed how important it was for the Office to provide Bangladesh with assistance.

The Workers' members emphasized that even if the Committee were examining the case of Bangladesh for the first time on the application of Convention No. 87, the Committee of Experts has been commenting on important points as to the limitations on trade union freedom in Bangladesh for quite a number of years. These were points that every country must respect, regardless of its degree of economic development.

The legislative review in progress which was given to a national tripartite committee along with the preparation of a new Labour Code undoubtedly marked the beginning of a positive change in attitude. Nevertheless, two major concerns were expressed. First of all, the effective implementation of the conclusions of the national tripartite committee should help to revise national legislation and practice as indicated in the remarks of the Experts. In this respect, there was a second concern as the Committee of Experts had taken note that while the new draft code satisfied some of its criticisms, it nevertheless included significant parts of the present code which the Experts had indicated, violate trade union freedom. In this respect, the comments of the Experts had been the same for quite some time.

The Workers' members then commented on the state of trade union freedom in Bangladesh, as described in the report of the Committee of Experts and in light of the information supplied by the Government representative. Concerning freedom of association for persons in managerial positions, they insisted on the necessity of guaranteeing that these categories of workers might enjoy and effectively exercise the right to form unions and to join the union of their choice, including unions of other categories of workers. Moreover, it was necessary, as the Committee of Experts had noted, that the concept of "managerial functions" be defined strictly in order to ensure that other unions were not weakened. As for the intervention of public authorities in the setting-up, creation and operation of unions, the Workers' members emphasized the risks of arbitrary supervision. Excessive limitation on the setting-up and maintaining of unions posed problems, especially in terms of organizational recognition based totally or for a large part on company unions in which workers of small and medium-sized businesses risked being excluded. They insisted on the need to adopt procedures and texts facilitating freedom of association.

As for export processing zones, the Workers' members stated that the guarantee of effective exercise of freedom of association was not assured and this constituted a major concern for the national and international union movement.

As for restrictions on the right to strike, the Workers' members felt, on reading the report of the Committee of Experts, that the procedures for exercising this right were such that, in practice, the very principle of the right to strike was called into question. They declared that it was unacceptable that the Government was able to ban strikes if it judged that the strike was contrary to the national interest or would harm the economy of the country. Fundamental rights should be guaranteed regardless of the political system and degree of economic development of a country. The concerns and the points of view expressed by the Committee of Experts on this point were shared by the Workers' members.

They requested that the Labour Code and other relevant legislation be reworked in order to take into account all of the comments of the Experts and the conclusions of this Committee, as the violations mentioned were significant and had very serious repercussions on the exercise of the fundamental rights of workers.

The Workers' members joined with the Employers' members in requesting that all information provided by the Government representative, as well as other additional information, be forwarded shortly for review by the Committee of Experts. They suggested that the Government call upon the assistance of the Office in order to settle the remaining problems.

The Workers' member of Japan believed this was a case of serious and complex restrictions on freedom of association. He agreed with the Committee of Experts' concern over the draft Labour Code which still apparently excluded a wide section of workers from the scope of the right to organize. Among those who were denied full freedom of association were public servants whose right to issue publications was subject to restrictions.

He pointed out the need for further information on measures the Government has envisaged to amend the Industrial Relations Rules which grant government officials excessive power - not subject to any judicial review - in supervising trade unions. He also requested more information on a union's right to appeal administrative decisions.

The speaker then focused on the denial of the right to organize in export processing zones (EPZs), in contravention of the Convention which guarantees freedom of association to all workers regardless of where they work. Citing an ILO survey, he noted that EPZs were an issue not only in Bangladesh but also in an increasing number of countries, particularly in Asia, where EPZs employed more than three-quarters of all workers. A market economy was acceptable as long as it respected human rights, trade union rights and fair rules of competition. This was not the case of export processing zones in general and in EPZs in Bangladesh in particular.

The Workers' member of the Netherlands drew attention to the fact that all of the questions discussed last year concerning the application of Convention No. 98 arose again this year in regard to the application of Convention No. 87. Consequently, this year the Committee of Experts had not raised any new issues.

Last year the Workers' group called for cautious optimism with regard to the proposed changes in the labour legislation and expressly requested that this year there be changes with respect to the external supervision of trade union affairs and export processing zones. Last year the Government expressed the hope that the problems would be solved in 1995. This year, however, the Government stated that it was in line with ILO standards and that the remaining queries were under review. The speaker believed that since the same problems continued, in essence, the Government was not willing to take concrete action to solve the problems. He asked for clarification on the existence of a tripartite labour committee headed by the Minister of Labour and Manpower and a parliamentary standing committee on labour matters which the Government referred to last year.

Noting that there had been no major changes in the legislation, he requested the Committee to address this insufficiency. He believed that the Workers' group wrongly expressed their cautious optimism and that the Employers' group was correct in stating that amending the relevant law would take time. He believed the Government had not been forthright last year, nor this year, and again referred to the available option of technical assistance to overcome difficulties in applying the Convention both in law and in practice.

The Government representative stated that he might have been misunderstood. His Government attached great importance to the observations of the Committee of Experts and intended to comply with its requests.

As concerned the Labour Code, he observed that it had not yet been passed by Parliament and there was, at present, just a recommendation by the National Law Commission to draft a Labour Code.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) dated 24 August 2010, concerning issues already raised by the Committee as well as serious allegations on killings and physical assaults of protesters and arrests of trade union leaders. The Committee recalls that freedom of association and in particular the right to organize under the Convention can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of workers’ organizations and that detention of trade unionists for reasons connected with their activities in defence of the interests of workers, constitutes a serious interference with civil liberties in general and with trade union rights in particular. In these circumstances, the Committee urges the Government to provide full particulars in respect of all the allegations of killings, physical assaults and detention of trade unionists and trade union leaders.

The Committee also requests the Government to send information on the other matters raised by the Committee in its 2009 observation (80th Session), for examination in the context of the regular reporting cycle in 2011.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2008. As concerns the ITUC’s allegations of violations of the Convention in the garment sector, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that the present Government was committed to ensuring workers’ freedom of association rights and intends to take all measures to protect workers’ rights, health and safety in the workplace, and that the establishment of the Minimum Wages Board to enhance garment workers’ minimum wages was in progress. The Government states that the aggrieved workers have the legal right to submit grievances to their employers, to lodge a complaint with the Government Inspection Department or in the Department of Labour, and to sue in the labour court if necessary. Moreover, in early 2008, a crisis management committee in the garment sector was constituted to face the crisis and solve the relevant issues amicably through negotiations. The Government further indicates, in this respect, that all citizens of Bangladesh have the right to seek the shelter of the law to protect their lives or property, and that it was closely monitoring the issues so that employers may not fire innocent workers at will.

With regard to the 2008 ITUC allegations concerning the arrest and detention of the General Secretary of the Dhaka University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) and four other professors, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the cases have been concluded and the teachers released. In respect of the allegation that, despite a tripartite agreement signed on 12 June 2006 to withdraw cases lodged against the workers in 2006 and release the arrested persons in Gazipur, Tongi, Savar and Ashulia Police Stations, Cases Nos 49/06, 50/06 and 51/06 against workers which were under the jurisdiction of the Joydevpur Police Station were yet to be withdrawn, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that it was taking initiatives to withdraw all three cases under the Joydevpur Police Station’s jurisdiction – which concerned a total of 41 persons – in accordance with the 2006 tripartite agreement.

Previously, the Committee had requested the Government to provide its observations on the ITUC’s allegation that the Joint Director for Labour (JDL), who is responsible for registering trade unions, refused to take any action on pending union registration applications in 2007, particularly in the textiles sector. It had also requested the Government to indicate the status of the Bangladesh Garments and Industrial Sramik Federation (BGIWF), which according to the ITUC had faced deregistration. The Government indicates, in this regard, that due to the declaration of an emergency in 2007 some constitutional and labour law provisions relating to trade union formation and registration were suspended – thus rendering trade union registration impossible that year. The Government adds that since January 2009, 73 trade unions have been registered. As concerns the BGIWF, the Government states that the Registrar of Trade Unions had applied to the Court seeking the cancellation of the BGIWF’s registration; while the case was presently under examination the BGIWF remains a registered organization under the law and is freely pursuing its activities. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the status of the court case concerning the BGIWF’s registration, the reason for the cancellation request by the Registrar and to provide a copy of the court’s judgement should it have been rendered.

The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, it had requested information on: (i) the measures taken, including instructions given to the law enforcement authorities, so as to avoid the danger of excessive violence in trying to control demonstrations, and ensure that arrests are made only where criminal acts have been committed; (ii) the charges brought in 2004 against 350 women trade unionists, including the General Secretary of the JSL’s Women’s Committee, Shamsur Nahar Bhuiyan and all judicial decisions taken in this matter; and (iii) the measures taken to ensure the prompt registration of Immaculate (Pvt) Ltd Sramik Union. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (1) it is fully aware and committed to freedom of association free from violence, pressure of threat of any kind, and that the necessary provisions are laid down in the laws. Arrests, furthermore, are only made pursuant to the law and when crimes are committed; (2) the law enforcement authorities are to avoid unnecessary violence, and the situation is monitored through monthly meetings of the Crisis Management Committee, comprised of officials of different law enforcement authorities. Moreover, at present there is no worker or trade union leader arrested for participation in demonstrations; (3) the charges brought in 2004 against the 350 women trade unionists had been dropped – they are presently free and enjoying the exercise of their trade union rights; and (4) the Director of Labour, who is responsible for trade union registration, is still awaiting the application for registration of the Immaculate (Pvt) Ltd Sramik Union; the Department of Labour (DOL) would take prompt measures to register the union upon receipt of its application. In these circumstances, the Committee expresses the hope that, once the Immaculate (Pvt) Ltd Sramik Union’s application is received, the Government will actively pursue measures to ensure the union’s prompt registration.

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the ITUC in a communication dated 26 August 2009. The ITUC alleges additional violations of the Convention in 2008. In particular, the ITUC refers to the following violations in the garment sector: the arrest of and bringing of charges (later dropped) against members and leaders of the Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers Union Federation (BIGWUF), the Shawdhin Bangla Garments Sramik Karmachari Federation (SBGSKF), the Textile Garments Workers Federation (TGWF), the Bangladesh Posak Shilpo Sramik Federation (BPSSF), and the National Garment Workers Federation (NGWF); the imprisonment from September to December of the President of the New Modern Garment Workers and Employees Union (NMGWEU); the beating of female garment workers for having participated in a strike; and arrests, detentions and physical assault by the police against numerous workers from more than a dozen garment factories. The Committee recalls once again that freedom of association can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of workers’ organizations and that detention of trade unionists for reasons connected with their activities in defence of the interests of workers, constitutes a serious interference with civil liberties in general and with trade union rights in particular. The Committee notes with concern these allegations and requests the Government to provide full particulars in respect of the ITUC’s allegations.

Right to organize in export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee had previously noted the ITUC’s allegation that the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) continued to raise obstacles to the establishment of workers’ associations in EPZs – even though section 13(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2004 provided that workers had the right to apply to form workers’ associations after the deadline of 31 October 2006 – and had requested the Government to provide statistical information on the number of workers’ associations established in the EPZs after 1 November 2006. The Government indicates that it has, through a letter sent to all enterprises, encouraged the formation of workers’ associations as of 1 November 2006. To date, workers’ associations have been established in 188 enterprises, or 75.20 per cent of all the eligible enterprises. In this connection, the Committee notes that in its 2009 comments the ITUC alleges a number of restrictions on freedom of association rights in the EPZ sector. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in this respect.

The Committee further recalls that it had previously commented on the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2004, which contains numerous and significant restrictions and delays in relation to the right to organize in EPZs. The Committee notes that according to the Government, the BEPZA is aware of the Committee’s comments in this regard, which would be taken into consideration in the present review and amendment process of the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2004. In these circumstances, the Committee expresses the hope that the review and amendment process referred to by the Government would soon bring the following provisions of the said Act into conformity with the Convention, in line with its previous comments:

–      section 24, which provides that workers’ associations will not be allowed in industrial units established after the commencement of the Act until a period of three months has expired after the commencement of commercial production in the concerned unit;

–      section 25(1), which provides that there can be no more than one workers’ association per industrial unit;

–      sections 14, 15, 17 and 20, which establish excessive and complicated minimum membership and referendum requirements for the establishment of workers’ associations (a workers’ association may be formed only when a minimum of 30 per cent of the eligible workers of an industrial unit seek its formation, and this has been verified by the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA, who shall then conduct a referendum on the basis of which the workers shall acquire the legitimate right to form an association under the Act, only if more than 50 per cent of the eligible workers cast their vote, and more than 50 per cent of the votes cast are in favour of the formation of the workers’ association);

–      section 17(2), which confers excessive powers of approval of the Constitution Drafting Committee to the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA;

–      section 16, which prevents steps for the establishment of a workers’ association in the workplace for a period of one year after a first attempt failed to gather sufficient support in a referendum;

–      section 35, which permits the deregistration of a workers’ association at the request of 30 per cent of the workers even if they are not members of the association and prevents the establishment of another trade union for one year after the previous trade union was deregistered;

–      sections 36(1)(c), (e)–(h) and 42(1)(a), which provide for the cancellation of the registration of a workers’ association on grounds which do not appear to justify the severity of this sanction (such as contravention of any of the provisions of the association’s constitution);

–      sections 54(3) and (4), which establish a total prohibition of industrial action in EPZs until 31 October 2008 (section 88(1) and (2)); provides for severe restrictions of strike action, once recognized (possibility to prohibit a strike if it continues for more than 15 days or even before this deadline, if the strike is considered as causing serious harm to productivity in the EPZ);

–      section 18(2), which prevents workers’ associations from obtaining or receiving any fund from any outside source without the prior approval of the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA;

–      section 32(1), which establishes an excessively high minimum number of trade unions to establish a higher level organization (more than 50 per cent of the workers’ associations in an EPZ);

–      section 32(3), which prohibits a federation from affiliating in any manner with federations in other EPZs and beyond EPZs; and

–      sections 5(6) and (7), 28(1), 29, and 32(4), which do not seem to afford guarantees against interference with the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom (e.g. the procedure of election is to be determined by the BEPZA).

The Committee further requests the Government to indicate any developments concerning the amendment and review process in its next report.

Other discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. The Committee recalls that for many years it had been referring to serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the adoption of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 (the Labour Act), which replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969, and noted with deep regret that the Labour Act did not contain any improvements in relation to the previous legislation and, in certain regards, contained even further restrictions which were contrary to the provisions of the Convention. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that a tripartite labour law review committee to identify the gaps and discrepancies in the Labour Act and suggest the necessary amendments had been constituted, as well as its indication that the workers excluded from the Labour Act’s provisions were not covered by other legislation. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of developments with regard to the review process referred to and expresses the firm hope that the Labour Act will soon be amended in line with the discrepancies previously identified, which it repeats as follows:

–      the need to repeal provisions on the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right to establish workers’ organizations (section 2 XLIX and LXV of the Labour Act) as well as new restrictions of the right to organize of firefighting staff, telex operators, fax operators and cipher assistants (exclusion from the provisions of the Act based on section 175 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to either amend section 1(4) of the Labour Act or adopt new legislation so as to ensure that the workers in the following sectors, which have been excluded from the scope of application of the Act including its provisions on freedom of association, have the right to organize: offices of or under the Government (except workers in the Railway Department, Posts, Telegraph and Telephone Departments, Roads and Highways Department, Public Works Department and Public Health Engineering Department and the Bangladesh Government Press); the security printing press; establishments for the treatment or care of the sick, infirm, aged, destitute, mentally disabled, orphans, abandoned children, widows or deserted women, which are not run for profit or gains; shops or stalls in public exhibitions which deal in retail trade; shops in any public fair for religious or charitable purposes; educational, training and research institutions; agricultural farms with less than ten workers; domestic servants; and establishments run by the owner with the aid of members of the family.

–      the need to repeal provisions which restrict membership in trade unions and participation in trade union elections to those workers who are currently employed in an establishment or group of establishments, including seafarers currently engaged in merchant shipping (section 2 LXV and 175, 185(2) of the Labour Act);

–      the need to repeal or amend new provisions which define as an unfair labour practice on the part of a worker or trade union, an act aimed at “intimidating” any person to become, continue to be or cease to be a trade union member or officer, or “inducing” any person to cease to be a member or officer of a trade union by conferring or offering to confer any advantage and the consequent penalty of imprisonment for such acts (sections 196(2)(a) and (b) and 291 of the Labour Act); the Committee considers that the terms “intimidating” or “inducing” are too general and do not sufficiently safeguard against interference in internal trade union affairs, since, for instance, a common activity of trade unions is to recruit members by offering advantages, including with regard to other trade unions;

–      the need to repeal provisions which prevent workers from running for trade union office if they were previously convicted for compelling or attempting to compel the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement or to agree to any demand by using intimidation, pressure, threats, etc. (sections 196(2)(d) and 180(1)(a) of the Labour Act);

–      the need to lower the minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in an establishment or group of establishments for initial and continued union registration, as well as the possibility of deregistration if the membership falls below this number (sections 179(2) and 190(f) of the Labour Act); the need to repeal provisions which provide that no more than three trade unions shall be registered in any establishment or group of establishments (section 179(5) of the Labour Act) and that only one trade union of seafarers shall be registered (section 185(3) of the Labour Act); finally, the need to repeal provisions prohibiting workers from joining more than one trade union and the consequent penalty of imprisonment in case of violation of this prohibition (sections 193 and 300 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to repeal provisions denying the right of unregistered unions to collect funds (section 192 of the Labour Act) upon penalty of imprisonment (section 299 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to lift several restrictions on the right to strike: requirement for three-quarters of the members of a workers’ organization to consent to a strike (sections 211(1) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); possibility of prohibiting strikes which last more than 30 days (sections 211(3) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); possibility of prohibiting strikes at any time if a strike is considered prejudicial to the national interest (sections 211(3) and 227(c) of the Labour Act) or involves a public utility service including the generation, production, manufacture, or supply of gas and oil to the public, as well as railways, airways, road and river transport, ports and banking (sections 211(4) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); prohibition of strikes for a period of three years from the date of commencement of production in a new establishment, or an establishment owned by foreigners or established in collaboration with foreigners (sections 211(8) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); penalties of imprisonment for participation in – or instigation to take part in unlawful industrial action or go-slow (sections 196(2)(e) and 291, 294–296 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to repeal provisions which provide that no person refusing to take part in an illegal strike shall be subject to expulsion or any other disciplinary measure by the trade union, so as to leave this matter to be determined in accordance with trade union rules (section 229 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to amend new provisions which define as an unfair labour practice on the part of workers, an act of compelling or attempting to compel the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement or to accept or agree to any demand by using “intimidation”, “pressure”, “threat” so as to ensure that there is no interference with the right of trade unions to engage in activities like collective bargaining or strikes, and to repeal the consequent penalty of imprisonment for such acts (sections 196(d) and 291(2) of the Labour Act);

–      the need to amend provisions which impose a penalty of imprisonment for failure to appear before the conciliator in the framework of settlement of industrial disputes (section 301 of the Labour Act).

The Committee had previously requested the Government to indicate whether rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules 1977 (IRR), which previously granted the Registrar of Trade Unions (RTU) overly broad authority to enter trade union offices, inspect documents, etc., without judicial review, had been repealed by the entry into force of the Labour Act 2006. The Committee notes that the Government states, in this regard, that rule 10 of the IRR remains valid, and that – as its purpose was to maintain discipline in trade union administrations – it was not in favour of repealing the said provision. The Government further indicates that the workers’ representatives in the tripartite review process towards the enactment of the Labour Act had raised no objections to the RTU’s authority in these matters. In this respect, the Committee must once again recall that the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration without interference by the public authorities includes in particular, autonomy and financial independence and the protection of the assets and property of these organizations. There is no violation of the Convention if such verification is limited to exceptional cases, for example in order to investigate a complaint, or if there have been allegations of embezzlement. Both the substance and the procedure of such verifications should however always be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording every guarantee of impartiality and objectivity [see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 124 and 125]. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to repeal rule 10 of the IRR or amend the latter so as to ensure that the Registrar of Trade Unions’ (RTU) authority to supervise a trade union’s internal affairs conforms to the principles mentioned above.

The Committee takes due note of the Government’s statement that it was fully committed to ensuring compliance with the Convention and the promotion of freedom of association in the country. The Committee invites the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in respect of all the matters raised above.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received and takes note of the discussion that took place at the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2008.

The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it took note of an extensive list of serious violations of workers’ basic civil liberties which, according to the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), had been committed in 2006 in the context of a strike and a riot in the garment sector and a reported harsh crackdown by the army’s rapid action battalion; the ITUC had also referred to the death of a striking worker, numerous arrests of trade union leaders, the raiding of trade union offices and police harassment.

The Committee takes note of the comments made by the ITUC in a communication dated 29 August 2008, with regard to alleged violations committed in 2007 including the arrest and detention of the General Secretary of Dhaka University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) and intimidation of unions by the military and security forces, the Government and employers. The Committee also notes that despite a tripartite agreement signed on 12 June 2006 to withdraw cases lodged against the workers in 2006 and release the arrested persons in Gazipur, Tongi, Savar and Ashulia Police Stations, Cases Nos 49/06, 50/06 and 51/06 against workers which are under the jurisdiction of the Joydevpur Police Station are yet to be withdrawn.

The Committee notes from the statement of the Government representative to the Conference Committee that all those arrested had been released on bail and the Government was not actively pursuing their cases. There were over 5,000 factories in the country with 2.5 million workers and it was not easy to maintain law and order in all of the factories. The Government was committed to ensuring law and order in factories with the utmost restraint.

The Committee regrets that the Government has not provided full particulars in respect of all the allegations of arrest, harassment and detention of trade unionists and trade union leaders as requested by the Conference Committee. Recalling that freedom of association can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of workers’ organizations and that detention of trade unionists for reasons connected with their activities in defence of the interests of workers, constitutes a serious interference with civil liberties in general and with trade union rights in particular, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide full particulars in respect of all the allegations of arrest, harassment and detention of trade unionists and trade union leaders.

Furthermore, the Committee reiterates its previous requests for information on: (i) measures taken, including instructions given to the law enforcement authorities, so as to avoid the danger of excessive violence in trying to control demonstrations, and ensure that arrests are made only where criminal acts have been committed; (ii) the charges brought in 2004 against 350 women trade unionists, including the General Secretary of the JSL’s Women’s Committee, Shamsur Nahar Bhuiyan and all judicial decisions taken in this matter; and (iii) the measures taken to ensure the prompt registration of Immaculate (Pvt) Ltd Sramik Union.

The Committee notes that according to the latest communication by the ITUC, throughout 2007 the Joint Director for Labour (JDL) who is responsible for registering new trade unions refused to take any actions on pending union registration applications, particularly in the textiles sector, thereby effectively denying workers their right to association and bargain collectively; the ITUC also refers to processes initiated to deregister the Bangladesh Garments and Industrial Sramik Federation (BGIWF) and threats to deregister two other federations which cooperated with the petition of the AFL–CIO lodged before the Office of the US Trade Representative seeking the revocation of Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) privileges for Bangladesh. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in this regard and to indicate the number of trade unions registered in 2007, particularly in the textile sector, as well as the current status of the BGIWF.

The Committee also recalls that its previous comments concerned the following issues.

Right to organize in export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee notes that according to the previous comments made by the ITUC, the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) continued to raise obstacles to the establishment of workers’ associations in EPZs after the deadline of
31 October 2006 set in section 13(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2004; although after this deadline, workers had the right to apply to form workers’ associations the BEPZA allegedly failed to devise and provide the prescribed form needed by the workers to this effect, thus preventing in practice the establishment of such associations; the ITUC adds in its latest communication that following the filing of the AFL–CIO petition on the revocation of GSP privileges, delaying tactics at BEPZA relented and workers were provided the opportunity to register their intent to form workers’ associations and participate in elections to formally establish them; in the final months of 2007, many workers’ associations went through the election process, frequently with over 90 per cent of the workers in favour; nevertheless, employers continued to refuse to substantively accept their role or to enter into negotiations with them. The Committee requests the Government to communicate its observations in this regard and to provide statistical information on the number of workers’ associations established in the EPZs after 1 November 2006.

The Committee further recalls that the EPZ workers’ associations and Industrial Relations Act 2004, contains numerous and significant restrictions and delays in relation to the right to organize in EPZs and, in particular:

(i)     provides that workers’ associations will not be allowed in industrial units established after the commencement of the Act, until a period of three months has expired after the commencement of commercial production in the concerned unit (section 24);

(ii)     provides that there can be no more than one workers’ association per industrial unit (section 25(1));

(iii)    establishes excessive and complicated minimum membership and referendum requirements for the establishment of workers’ associations (a workers’ association may be formed only when a minimum of 30 per cent of the eligible workers of an industrial unit seek its formation, and this has been verified by the Executive Chairperson of BEPZA, who shall then conduct a referendum on the basis of which the workers shall acquire the legitimate right to form an association under the Act, only if more than 50 per cent of the eligible workers cast their vote, and more than 50 per cent of the votes cast are in favour of the formation of the workers’ association (sections 14, 15, 17 and 20);

(iv)    confers excessive powers of approval of the constitution drafting committee to the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA (section 17(2));

(v)    prevents steps for the establishment of a workers’ association in the workplace for a period of one year after a first attempt failed to gather sufficient support in a referendum (section 16);

(vi)    permits the deregistration of a workers’ association at the request of 30 per cent of the workers even if they are not members of the association and prevents the establishment of another trade union for one year after the previous trade union was deregistered (section 35);

(vii)   provides for the cancellation of the registration of a workers’ association on grounds which do not appear to justify the severity of this sanction (such as contravention of any of the provisions of the association’s constitution) (sections 36(1)(c), (e)–(h) and 42(1)(a));

(viii)  establishes a total prohibition of industrial action in EPZs until 31 October 2008 (section 88(1) and (2)); provides for severe restrictions of strike action, once recognized (possibility to prohibit a strike if it continues for more than 15 days or even before this deadline, if the strike is considered as causing serious harm to productivity in the EPZ (section 54(3) and (4));

(ix)    prevents workers’ associations from obtaining or receiving any fund from any outside source without the prior approval of the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA (section 18(2));

(x)    establishes an excessively high minimum number of trade unions to establish a higher level organization (more than 50 per cent of the workers’ associations in an EPZ (section 32(1));

(xi)    prohibits a federation from affiliating in any manner with federations in other EPZs and beyond EPZs (section 32(3)); and

(xii)   does not seem to afford guarantees against interference with the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom (e.g. the procedure of election shall be determined by the BEPZA, etc. (sections 5(6) and (7), 28(1), 29 and 32(4)).

The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the EPZ workers’ associations and Industrial Relations Act so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and to provide detailed information in its next report in this respect.

Other discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. The Committee recalls that for many years it had been referring to serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention. It now notes the adoption of the Bangladesh Labour Act 2006 (the Labour Act) which replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 (section 353(1)(x)).

The Committee notes with deep regret that the new Act does not contain any improvements in relation to the previous legislation and in certain regards contains even further restrictions which run against the provisions of the Convention. Thus, the Committee notes the following:

–      the need to repeal provisions on the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right to establish workers’ organizations (section 2 XLIX and LXV of the Labour Act) as well as new restrictions of the right to organize of fire-fighting staff, telex operators, fax operators and cipher assistants (exclusion from the provisions of the Act based on section 175 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to either amend section 1(4) of the Labour Act or adopt new legislation so as to ensure that the workers in the following sectors, which have been excluded from the scope of application of the Act including its provisions on freedom of association, have the right to organize: offices of or under the Government (except workers in the Railway Department, Posts, Telegraph and Telephone Departments, Roads and Highways Department, Public Works Department and Public Health Engineering Department and the Bangladesh Government Press); the security printing press; establishments for the treatment or care of the sick, infirm, aged, destitute, mentally disabled, orphans, abandoned children, widows or deserted women, which are not run for profit or gains; shops or stalls in public exhibitions which deal in retail trade; shops in any public fair for religious or charitable purposes; educational, training and research institutions; agricultural farms with less than ten workers; domestic servants; and establishments run by the owner with the aid of members of the family. In case any of the above sectors are already covered by existing legislation, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect;

–      the need to repeal provisions which restrict membership in trade unions and participation in trade union elections to those workers who are currently employed in an establishment or group of establishments, including seafarers currently engaged in merchant shipping (section 2 LXV and 175, 185(2) of the Labour Act);

–      the need to repeal or amend new provisions which define as an unfair labour practice on the part of a worker or trade union, an act aimed at “intimidating” any person to become, continue to be or cease to be a trade union member or officer, or “inducing” any person to cease to be a member or officer of a trade union by conferring or offering to confer any advantage and the consequent penalty of imprisonment for such acts (sections 196(2)(a) and (b) and 291 of the Labour Act); the Committee considers that the terms “intimidating” or “inducing” are too general and do not sufficiently safeguard against interference in internal trade union affairs, since, for instance, a common activity of trade unions is to recruit members by offering advantages, including with regard to other trade unions;

–      the need to repeal provisions which prevent workers from running for trade union office if they were previously convicted for compelling or attempting to compel the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement or to agree to any demand by using intimidation, pressure, threats, etc. (sections 196(2)(d) and 180(1)(a) of the Labour Act);

–      the need to lower the minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in an establishment or group of establishments for initial and continued union registration, as well as the possibility of deregistration if the membership falls below this number (sections 179(2) and 190(f) of the Labour Act); the need to repeal provisions which provide that no more than three trade unions shall be registered in any establishment or group of establishments (section 179(5) of the Labour Act) and that only one trade union of seafarers shall be registered (section 185(3) of the Labour Act); finally, the need to repeal provisions prohibiting workers from joining more than one trade union and the consequent penalty of imprisonment in case of violation of this prohibition (sections 193 and 300 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to repeal provisions denying the right of unregistered unions to collect funds (section 192 of the Labour Act) upon penalty of imprisonment (section 299 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to lift several restrictions on the right to strike: requirement for three-quarters of the members of a workers’ organization to consent to a strike (sections 211(1) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); possibility of prohibiting strikes which last more than 30 days (sections 211(3) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); possibility of prohibiting strikes at any time if a strike is considered prejudicial to the national interest (sections 211(3) and 227(c) of the Labour Act) or involves a public utility service including the generation, production, manufacture, or supply of gas and oil to the public, as well as railways, airways, road and river transport, ports and banking (sections 211(4) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); prohibition of strikes for a period of three years from the date of commencement of production in a new establishment, or an establishment owned by foreigners or established in collaboration with foreigners (sections 211(8) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); penalties of imprisonment for participation in – or instigation to take part in unlawful industrial action or go-slow (sections 196(2)(e) and 291, 294–296 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to repeal provisions which provide that no person refusing to take part in an illegal strike shall be subject to expulsion or any other disciplinary measure by the trade union, so as to leave this matter to be determined in accordance with trade union rules (section 229 of the Labour Act);

–      the need to amend new provisions which define as an unfair labour practice on the part of workers, an act of compelling or attempting to compel the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement or to accept or agree to any demand by using “intimidation”, “pressure”, “threat” so as to ensure that there is no interference with the right of trade unions to engage in activities like collective bargaining or strikes, and to repeal the consequent penalty of imprisonment for such acts (sections 196(d) and 291(2) of the Labour Act);

–      the need to amend provisions which impose a penalty of imprisonment for failure to appear before the conciliator in the framework of settlement of industrial disputes (section 301 of the Labour Act).

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to bring the Labour Act 2006 into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee also notes that it is not clear from the provisions of the Labour Act whether rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules 1977 (IRO) which previously granted the Registrar of Trade Unions overly broad authority to enter trade union offices, inspect documents, etc., without judicial review, has been repealed. It would appear from section 353(2)(a) that the rule remains in force, as the section in question provides that any rule under any provision of the repealed laws (including the IRO) shall have effect until altered, amended, rescinded or repealed, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Labour Act 2006. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether rule 10 of the IRO has been repealed by the entry into force of the Labour Act 2006 and, if not, to indicate the measures taken or contemplated with a view to its repeal or amendment.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and its reply to the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), now the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), in 2006. It also takes note of the adoption of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, which replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and on which it comments further below.

The Committee also notes the comments sent by the ITUC in a communication dated 27 August 2007 with regard to legislative issues already raised by the Committee and serious allegations of civil rights violations committed in 2006: (i) the killing of a striker by the police on 23 May 2006 in the context of a strike in the garment sector at Gazipur, which led to a riot on the same day, in particular in the Savar EPZ and the districts of Uttara, Mirpur, Kafrul, Old Dhaka, and Tejgaeon; according to the ITUC, the riot was followed by a harsh crackdown by the army’s rapid action battalion with hundreds of workers arrested; (ii) the raiding of the offices of the Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers’ Union Federation (BIGUF) on the same day (23 May 2006), the arrest of two BIGUF union organizers (Rashedul Alom Faju and Rebecca Khatun) and an office staff person (Minara) and their physical abuse while in police custody; their subsequent charging with destruction of property, vandalism and other charges connected to the labour unrest of that day; (iii) the arrest on the same day (23 May 2006) of Moshrefa Mishu, President of the Garment Workers’ Union Forum and her detention for five days (allowed bail on 26 May) and the filing of 19 charges against her in connection with the same events; (iv) the arrest on 13 October 2006 of Chandon, International Secretary of BIGUF and his interrogation throughout the night about BIGUF’s activities to organize workers in the EPZs; (v) police harassment against the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, set up by AFL–CIO, after publishing a pamphlet for EPZ workers; (vi) the arrest of three top leaders of the Bangladesh Cha Sramik Union (BCSU) on 24 March 2006 on charges which had already been investigated and found groundless the year before (released on bail on 13 April 2006) and brutal dispersion by the police of the BCSU members gathered outside the police station; (vii) assault against and serious injury of Roy Ramesh Chadra, General Secretary of the Bangladesh National Council of Textile, Garment and Leather Workers and an executive committee member of ITGLWF-TWARO on 14 April 2006; (viii) shots fired on 10 May 2006 against Mohammed Firoz Mia, President of the Bangladesh Telejogajog Sramik Karmochari Union which represents workers at the Bangladesh Telephone and Telegraph Board, who was actively campaigning against privatization. Recalling that freedom of association can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of workers’ organizations and that detention of trade unionists for reasons connected with their activities in defence of the interests of workers constitutes a serious interference with civil liberties in general and with trade union rights in particular, the Committee requests the Government to communicate its observations on the very serious comments made by the ITUC.

With regard to additional civil liberties violations communicated by the ICFTU in previous communications, including harassment of unions by the intelligence authorities, police violence against protesting workers, arrest of trade unionists, as well as the difficulty in establishing trade unions in the ship recycling industry, the Committee notes the Government’s observations according to which trade unions have not been harassed by the law enforcement agencies but rather the law enforcement agencies were obliged to perform their duties in cases where trade union leaders leading a procession, rally or demonstration were not in control of the mob so that unruly people would start to rampage, damage property, barricade highways, etc.; moreover, although workers in any sector have the right to establish trade unions under the new Labour Law of 2006, workers in the shipbreaking sector are casual workers and do not get an opportunity to form unions, because of the limited period of their employment (connected to the breaking of a specific ship). The Committee recalls that Article 8 of the Convention provides that workers and their organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the law of the land and that the law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied so as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this Convention. In this regard, the Committee wishes to emphasize that the authorities should resort to the use of force only in situations where law and order is seriously threatened. The intervention of the forces of order should be in due proportion to the danger to law and order that the authorities are attempting to control and governments should take measures to ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to eliminate the danger entailed by the use of excessive violence when controlling demonstrations which might result in a disturbance of the peace. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that, by virtue of  Article 2 of the Convention, workers without distinction whatsoever, including casual and informal sector workers in the shipbreaking industry, shall have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report any measures taken, including instructions given to the law enforcement authorities, so as to avoid the danger of excessive violence in trying to control demonstrations, and ensure that arrests are made only where criminal acts have been committed.

With regard to its previous comments concerning the arrest of 350 women trade unionists including the General Secretary of the JSL Women’s Committee, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that in 2004, in order to maintain law and order, the law enforcement agencies had to detain a few women from a mob while they were on a rampage, damaging a number of factories, barricading a highway, etc.; specific charges had been brought against them immediately after the incident as per the law of the land. The case (No. 7 of 2004) is still pending and a copy of judicial decisions may be communicated to the Committee as and when pronounced. The Committee requests the Government to communicate details as to the charges brought in 2004 against 350 women trade unionists, including the General Secretary of the JSL’s Women’s Committee, Shamsur Nahar Bhuiyan and to provide a copy of all judicial decisions taken in this matter. Moreover, noting with regret that the Government does not provide any information on the registration of Immaculate (Pvt.) Ltd Sramik Union despite previous requests to this effect, the Committee once again requests the Government to report on the measures taken to ensure the prompt registration of the union.

The Committee further recalls that its previous comments concerned the following issues:

1. Right to organize in export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee recalls that the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act, 2004, contains numerous and significant restrictions and delays in relation to the right to organize in EPZs and in particular: (i) contained a blanket denial of the right to organize in EPZs until 31 October 2006 after which workers’ associations may be established (section 13(1)); the Committee notes that this deadline has been met and takes note of the latest communication of the ITUC, according to which, on 1 November 2006, workers had the right to apply to form workers’ associations but the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) failed to devise and provide the prescribed form needed by the workers to this effect, thus preventing in practice the establishment of such associations; (ii) provides that workers’ associations will not be allowed in industrial units established after the commencement of the Act, until a period of three months has expired after the commencement of commercial production in the concerned unit (section 24); (iii) provides that there can be no more than one workers’ association per industrial unit (section 25(1)); (iv) establishes excessive and complicated minimum membership and referendum requirements for the establishment of workers’ associations (a workers’ association may be formed only when a minimum of 30 per cent of the eligible workers of an industrial unit seek its formation, and this has been verified by the executive chairperson of BEPZA, who shall then conduct a referendum on the basis of which the workers shall acquire the legitimate right to form an association under the Act, only if more than 50 per cent of the eligible workers cast their vote, and more than 50 per cent of the votes cast are in favour of the formation of the workers’ association sections 14, 15, 17 and 20); (v) confers excessive powers of approval of the constitution drafting committee to the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA (section 17(2)); (vi) prevents steps for the establishment of a workers’ association in the workplace for a period of one year after a first attempt failed to gather sufficient support in a referendum (section 16); (vii) permits the deregistration of a workers’ association at the request of 30 per cent of the workers even if they are not members of the association and prevents the establishment of another trade union for one year after the previous trade union was deregistered (section 35); (viii) provides for the cancellation of the registration of a workers’ association on grounds which do not appear to justify the severity of this sanction (such as contravention of any of the provisions of the association’s constitution) (section 36(1)(c), (e)–(h) and 42(1)(a)); (ix) establishes a total prohibition of industrial action in EPZs until 31 October 2008 (section 88(1) and (2)); (x) prevents workers’ associations from obtaining or receiving any fund from any outside source without the prior approval of the Executive Chairperson of the BEPZA (section 18(2)); (xi) provides for severe restrictions of strike action, once recognized (possibility to prohibit a strike if it continues for more than 15 days or even before this deadline, if the strike is considered as causing serious harm to productivity in the EPZ – section 54(3) and (4)); (xii) establishes an excessively high minimum number of trade unions to establish a higher level organization (more than 50 per cent of the workers’ associations in an EPZ – section 32(1)); (xiii) prohibits a federation from affiliating in any manner with federations in other EPZs and beyond EPZs (section 32(3)); and (xiv) does not seem to afford guarantees against interference with the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom (e.g., the procedure of election shall be determined by the BEPZA, etc. – sections 5(6) and (7), 28(1), 29, 32(4)). Noting that the Government’s report does not provide any new information in respect of the above, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and to provide detailed information in its next report in this respect. It also requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments made by the ICFTU concerning obstacles to the establishment of workers’ associations in EPZs after 1 November 2006 and to provide statistical information on the number of workers’ associations established in the EPZs after that date.

2. Other discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. The Committee recalls that for many years it had been referring to serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention. It now notes the adoption of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 (the Labour Act) which replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (section 353(1)(x)).

The Committee notes with deep regret that the new Act does not contain any improvements in relation to the previous legislation and in certain regards contains even further restrictions which run against the provisions of the Convention. Thus, the Committee notes the following:

–           the need to repeal provisions on the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right to establish workers’ organizations (section 2 XLIX and LXV of the Labour Act) as well as new restrictions of the right to organize of fire-fighting staff, telex operators, fax operators and cipher assistants (exclusion from the provisions of the Act based on section 175 of the Labour Act);

–           the need to either amend section 1(4) of the Labour Act or adopt new legislation so as to ensure that the workers in the following sectors, which have been excluded from the scope of application of the Act including its provisions on freedom of association, have the right to organize: offices of or under the Government (except workers in the Railway Department, Posts, Telegraph and Telephone Departments, Roads and Highways Department, Public Works Department and Public Health Engineering Department and the Bangladesh Government Press); the security printing press; establishments for the treatment or care of the sick, infirm, aged, destitute, mentally disabled, orphans, abandoned children, widows or deserted women, which are not run for profit or gains; shops or stalls in public exhibitions which deal in retail trade; shops in any public fair for religious or charitable purposes; educational, training and research institutions; agricultural farms with less than ten workers; domestic servants; and establishments run by the owner with the aid of members of the family; in case any of the above sectors are already covered by existing legislation, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in this respect;

–           the need to repeal provisions which restrict membership in trade unions and participation in trade union elections to those workers who are currently employed in an establishment or group of establishments, including seamen currently engaged in merchant shipping (section 2 LXV and 175, 185(2) of the Labour Act);

–           the need to repeal or amend new provisions which define as an unfair labour practice on the part of a worker or trade union, an act aimed at “intimidating” any person to become, continue to be or cease to be a trade union member or officer, or “inducing” any person to cease to be a member or officer of a trade union by conferring or offering to confer any advantage and the consequent penalty of imprisonment for such acts (sections 196(2)(a) and (b) and 291 of the Labour Act); the Committee considers that the terms “intimidating” or “inducing” are too general and do not sufficiently safeguard against interference in internal trade union affairs, since, for instance, a common activity of trade unions is to recruit members by offering advantages, including with regard to other trade unions;

–           the need to repeal provisions which prevent workers from running for trade union office if they were previously convicted for compelling or attempting to compel the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement or to agree to any demand by using intimidation, pressure, threats, etc. (sections 196(2)(d) and 180(1)(a) of the Labour Act);

–           the need to lower the minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in an establishment or group of establishments for initial and continued union registration as well as the possibility of deregistration if the membership falls below this number (sections 179(2) and 190(f) of the Labour Act); the need to repeal provisions which provide that no more than three trade unions shall be registered in any establishment or group of establishments (section 179(5) of the Labour Act) and that only one trade union of seamen shall be registered (section 185(3) of the Labour Act); finally, the need to repeal provisions prohibiting workers from joining more than one trade union and the consequent penalty of imprisonment in case of violation of this prohibition (sections 193 and 300 of the Labour Act);

–           the need to repeal provisions denying the right of unregistered unions to collect funds (section 192 of the Labour Act) upon penalty of imprisonment (section 299 of the Labour Act);

–           the need to lift several restrictions on the right to strike: requirement for three-quarters of the members of a workers’ organization to consent to a strike (sections 211(1) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); possibility of prohibiting strikes which last more than 30 days (sections 211(3) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); possibility of prohibiting strikes at any time if a strike is considered prejudicial to the national interest (sections 211(3) and 227(c) of the Labour Act) or involves a public utility service including the generation, production, manufacture, or supply of gas and oil to the public, as well as railways, airways, road and river transport, ports, and banking (sections 211(4) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); prohibition of strikes for a period of three years from the date of commencement of production in a new establishment, or an establishment owned by foreigners or established in collaboration with foreigners (sections 211(8) and 227(c) of the Labour Act); penalties of imprisonment for participation in – or instigation to take part in unlawful industrial action or go-slow (sections 196(2)(e) and 291, 294–296 of the Labour Act);

–           the need to repeal provisions which provide that no person refusing to take part in an illegal strike shall be subject to expulsion or any other disciplinary measure by the trade union, so as to leave this matter to be determined in accordance with trade union rules (section 229 of the Labour Act);

–           the need to amend new provisions which define as an unfair labour practice on the part of workers, an act of compelling or attempting to compel the employer to sign a memorandum of settlement or to accept or agree to any demand by using “intimidation”, “pressure”, “threat” so as to ensure that there is no interference with the right of trade unions to engage in activities like collective bargaining or strikes, and to repeal the consequent penalty of imprisonment for such acts (sections 196(d) and 291(2) of the Labour Act);

–           the need to amend provisions which impose a penalty of imprisonment for failure to appear before the conciliator in the framework of settlement of industrial disputes (section 301 of the Labour Act).

The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to bring the Labour Act, 2006 into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee also notes that it is not clear from the provisions of the Labour Act whether Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977 (IRO) which previously granted the Registrar of Trade Unions overly broad authority to enter trade union offices, inspect documents, etc., without judicial review, has been repealed. It would appear from section 353(2)(a) that the rule remains in force, as the section in question provides that any rule under any provision of the repealed laws (including the IRO) shall have effect until altered, amended, rescinded or repealed, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Labour Act, 2006. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977 has been repealed by the entry into force of the Labour Act, 2006 and, if not, to indicate the measures taken or contemplated with a view to its repeal or amendment.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s reply to the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) on 31 August 2005. The Committee recalls that the ICFTU’s comments referred to questions already raised and, in particular, concerned: (1) the police arrest of 350 women trade unionists in 2004, including the general secretary of the Jatio Sramik League (JSL) Women’s Committee, when they were taking part in activities to mark Women’s Day organized by the ICFTU-affiliated JSL (they were released on bail on 25 April and were due to face possible charges in court on 5 May 2005, although the nature of those charges was unclear); and (2) the Registrar’s refusal to register the Immaculate (Pvt.) Ltd. Sramik Union (a case which was the object of conclusions and recommendations by the Committee on Freedom of Association (Case No. 2371, 340th Report, paragraphs 35-41)).

Concerning the police arrest of 350 women trade unionists, the Committee takes note of the Government’s reply that it has no comment on this incident and that the law will take its own course. The Committee wishes to stress once again that the arrest and detention, even for short periods, of trade union leaders and members engaged in legitimate trade union activities, without any charges being brought and without a warrant, constitute a grave violation of the principle of freedom of association. Moreover, the Committee emphasizes that freedom of assembly constitutes a fundamental aspect of trade union rights and the authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof, provided that the exercise of these rights does not cause a serious and imminent threat to public order (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 31 and 35). The Committee requests the Government to communicate detailed observations indicating the grounds on which 350 women trade unionists, including the general secretary of the JSL’s Women’s Committee, Shamsur Nahar Bhuiyan, were arrested in 2004, whether charges have been brought against them, and whether their case is being heard in front of a judicial authority. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of all judicial decisions taken in this matter.

In respect to the ICFTU’s comments relating to the Registrar’s refusal to register the Immaculate (Pvt.) Ltd. Sramik Union, the Committee takes note of the Government’s reply stating that the matter is currently in front of the court. The Committee notes that the procedure for the registration of this union started in 2003. While regretting the delay, the Committee urges the Government to report on the measures taken to ensure the prompt registration of the Immaculate (Pvt.) Ltd. Sramik Union. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to send a copy of the judicial decisions once adopted.

Lastly, the Committee takes note of the observations of the ICFTU dated 12 July 2006, which mainly concern legislative issues raised in the previous observations of the Committee and underline recent problems regarding the application of Convention No. 87 in the garment and textile industries. In particular, the ICFTU alleges the harassment of unions by the national intelligence authorities, police violence against protesting workers, arrests of trade unionists, as well as the difficulty in establishing trade unions in the ship recycling industry.

The Committee requests the Government to transmit its observations on all the comments made by the ICFTU as well as on the other issues raised by the Committee (see 2005 observation, 76th Session) for examination during the regular reporting cycle in 2007.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain information on the Committee’s previous comments concerning the denial of the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds, as well as the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union.

The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend provisions which:

–      deny the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds (section 11A(1) and (2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO)); and

–      deny workers who may be working in more than one occupation the right to join more than one trade union (section 11B of the IRO).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report, including the recently adopted EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act, No. 23 of 2004. It also notes the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2327 with respect to the conformity of the provisions of this Act to the Convention (see 337th Report, approved by the Governing Body at its 293rd Session, June 2005, paragraphs 183-213). It notes finally, the comments sent by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) in a communication dated 31 August 2005. It requests the Government to communicate its observations on the comments in its next report.

1. Right to organize in export processing zones. The Committee notes that in its conclusions and recommendations reached in Case No. 2327, the Committee on Freedom of Association expressed its concern at the fact that, while taking certain steps to provide greater freedom of association to EPZ workers, the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act contains numerous and significant restrictions and delays in relation to the right to organize in EPZs. The Committee also notes the comments made in this respect by the ICFTU.

While observing that the adoption of this Act is aimed at providing greater protection for the association rights of EPZ workers, the Committee notes that numerous provisions of the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act are incompatible with the Convention. In particular, the Act: (i) contains a blanket denial of the right to organize in EPZs until 31 October 2006, thus postponing the effective recognition of this right until November 2006 (section 13(1)); (ii) provides that workers’ representation and welfare committees (WRWCs), which function instead of workers’ associations until 31 October 2006, shall be dissolved after that date, unless the employer considers that they should continue to function (section 11(2)); (iii) provides that workers’ associations will not be allowed in industrial units established after the commencement of the Act, until a period of three months has expired after the commencement of commercial production in the concerned unit (section 24); (iv) provides that there can be no more than one workers’ association per industrial unit (section 25(1)); (v) establishes excessive and complicated minimum membership and referendum requirements for the establishment of workers’ associations (sections 14, 15, 17 and 20); (vi) confers excessive powers of approval of the constitution drafting committee to the executive chairperson of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) (section 17(2)); (vii) prevents steps for the establishment of a workers’ association in the workplace for a period of one year after a first attempt failed to gather sufficient support in a referendum (section 16); (viii) permits the deregistration of a workers’ association at the request of 30 per cent of the workers even if they are not members of the association and prevents the establishment of another trade union for one year after the previous trade union was deregistered (section 35); (ix) provides for the cancellation of the registration of a workers’ association on grounds which do not appear to justify the severity of this sanction (such as contravention of any of the provisions of the association’s constitution) (section 36(1)(c), (e)-(h) and 42(1)(a)); (x) establishes a total prohibition of industrial action in EPZs until 31 October 2008 (section 88(1) and (2)); (xi) prevents workers’ associations from obtaining or receiving any fund from any outside source without the prior approval of the executive chairperson of the BEPZA (section 18(2)); (xii) provides for severe restrictions of strike action, once recognized (possibility to prohibit a strike if it continues for more than 15 days or even before this deadline, if the strike is considered as causing serious harm to productivity in the EPZ - section 54(3) and (4)); (xiii) requires an excessively high minimum number of trade unions to establish a higher level organization (more than 50 per cent of the workers’ associations in an EPZ - section 32(1)); (xiv) prohibits a federation from affiliating in any manner with federations in other EPZs and beyond EPZs (section 32(3)); and (xv) does not seem to afford guarantees against interference with the right of workers to elect their representatives in full freedom (e.g. the procedure of election shall be determined by the BEPZA, etc. - sections 5(6) and (7), 28(1), 29, 32(4)). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the EPZ Workers’ Associations and Industrial Relations Act so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and to provide detailed information in its next report in this respect.

2. Other discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. The Committee recalls that for many years it has been referring to serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention. It also notes that, according to the comments made by the ICFTU, there has been no improvement in national law and practice. In this respect, the Committee notes that, in its latest report, the Government reiterates previously provided information and indicates that in light of the national context, there is no discrepancy between the national legislation and the Convention. The Committee nevertheless underscores the universal nature of the rights set forth in the Convention and the absence of any exclusions relating to the national context.

The Committee therefore reiterates the hope that it will be possible to bring the legislation into full conformity with the requirements of the Convention as soon as possible and asks the Government to provide information in its next report with regard to measures taken or contemplated in order to:

-  remedy the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right to association (section 3(a) of the IRO);

-  repeal provisions which restrict membership in trade unions and participation in trade union elections to those workers who are currently employed or were employed during the previous year in an establishment or group of establishments (section 7A(1)(b) of the IRO); moreover, repeal provisions which prevent workers from running for trade union office if they were previously dismissed for misconduct;

-  limit the overly broad authority of the Registrar of Trade Unions to enter trade union offices, inspect documents, etc., without judicial review (Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977);

-  lower the minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in an establishment or group of establishments for initial and continued union registration (sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the IRO);

-  lift several restrictions on the right to strike (requirement for three-quarters of the members of a workers’ organization to consent to a strike (section 28 of the IRO), possibility of prohibiting strikes which last more than 30 days (section 32(2) of the IRO) and also at any time if a strike is considered prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(4) of the IRO) or involves a public utility service (section 33(1) of the IRO) and penalties of imprisonment for participation in unlawful industrial action (sections 57 and 59 of the IRO)).

3. Adoption of the draft Labour Code. The Committee recalls that, in its previous report, the Government had indicated that the draft Labour Code was being re-examined by the Tripartite Labour Code Review Committee, while the issue of the right of association of workers in the Security Printing Press had also been placed before the Review Committee. The Committee notes that the Government’s latest report contains no information with regard to these issues. The Committee requests once again that the Government transmit in its next report a copy of the draft Labour Code and provide information as to the current stage in the process of adoption of the Labour Code. It also requests that the Government provide information on measures taken to guarantee the right of association to workers in the Security Printing Press.

In respect of the legislative issues raised above, the Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office if it so wishes.

4. Publications of public servants’ associations. With regard to its previous comments concerning the right of public servants’ associations to issue publications on trade union matters (Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1979), the Committee notes the Government’s comments in its report to the effect that public servants can publish any research paper, articles or scientific matters in the newspapers or journals without prior approval of the Government, subject to the condition that such papers, materials or articles do not go against the interests of the Government, or the State, the citizens or the country’s integrity. While being aware of the particular nature of the functions performed by public servants, the Committee also recalls that the right to express opinions through the press or otherwise is an essential aspect of trade union rights which calls for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas. The Committee emphasizes that workers, employers and their organizations should enjoy freedom of opinion and expression at their meetings, in their publications and in the course of their other activities (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 38). It requests the Government to ensure respect for this freedom in practice.

5. ICFTU comments on violations of the Convention. The Committee notes with concern that, according to the comments sent by the ICFTU on 20 April 2005, the police arrested 350 women trade unionists, including the General Secretary of the JSL’s Women’s Committee, Shamsur Nahar Bhuiyan, when they were taking part in activities to mark Women’s Day organized by the ICFTU-affiliated Jatio Sramik League (JSL). They were released on bail on 25 April and were due to face possible charges in court on 5 May 2005, although the nature of those charges were unclear. The Committee recalls that the arrest and detention, even for short periods, of trade union leaders and members engaged in their legitimate trade union activities, without any charges being brought and without a warrant, constitute a grave violation of the principle of freedom of association. Moreover, the Committee emphasizes that freedom of assembly constitutes a fundamental aspect of trade union rights and the authorities should refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof, provided that the exercise of these rights does not cause a serious and imminent threat to public order (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 31 and 35). The Committee requests the Government to communicate its observations on the comments made by the ICFTU and, in particular, to indicate the grounds on which 350 women trade unionists including the General Secretary of the JSL’s Women’s Committee, Shamsur Nahar Bhuiyan, were arrested, whether charges have been brought against them and any measures taken to drop such charges and to remedy any damages suffered.

6. Furthermore, the Committee takes note of the comments made by the ICFTU with regard to the Registrar’s refusal to register the Immaculate (Pvt.) Ltd. Sramik Union and the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Committee on Freedom of Association in this respect (Case No. 2327, 337th Report, paragraphs 214-240). The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to ensure the prompt registration of the Immaculate (Pvt.) Ltd. Sramik Union.

The Committee addresses a request on certain other points directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

With regard to its previous comments concerning the denial of the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds, as well as the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union, although they may have more than one job (sections 11A(1) and (2)  and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO)), the Committee notes that the Government’s report confines itself to referring to previously provided information.

The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend the provisions which deny the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds, and to ensure that workers who may be working in more than one occupation may join more than one trade union so as to defend their interests in their respective occupations. Noting the ongoing revision of the Labour Code, the Committee hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future and requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report.

The Committee notes that according to the Government, the draft Labour Code has been re-examined by the Tripartite Labour Code Review Committee and necessary prior action is being taken for its submission to Parliament, while the issue concerning the right of association of workers in the Security Printing Press has also been placed before the Review Committee. The Committee requests the Government to transmit a copy of the draft Labour Code and trusts that the process of amending the Labour Code will be concluded soon and that the legislation will be brought into full conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

The Committee notes in this respect that the Government’s report is confined to reiterating previously provided information with regard to the Committee’s long-standing comments concerning serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention:

-  the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right of association (Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969);

-  restrictions on activities of public servants’ associations (Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979);

-  restrictions regarding membership in trade unions and election of union officers (section 7-A(1)(b) of the IRO and section 3 of Act No. 22 of 1990);

-  excessive external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions (Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977);

-  the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union (sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the IRO);

-  denial of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones (EPZ Authority Act, 1980);

-  restrictions on the right to strike (sections 28, 32(2) and (4), 33(1), 57 and 59 of the IRO).

The Committee once again urges the Government to take all necessary measures in the very near future so as to bring its national legislation into full conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any progress made in this regard.

In addition, a request regarding certain points is being addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. It recalls that its previous comments related to the following points.

The Committee had recalled that sections 11A(1) and (2) and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969, deny the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds as well as the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union at a time.

Concerning the first issue raised by section 11A(1) and (2) of the IRO, the Committee had noted the Government’s indication that such restrictions are aimed to prevent trade union multiplicity and ensure protection of public money. While noting the Government’s indication that some flexibility must be ensured in order to permit newly formed organizations to collect membership dues necessary to their registration by virtue of section 6, the Committee had considered that these provisions might seriously hinder the creation of new organizations. Therefore, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend its legislation in order to ensure that such flexibility will not be applied in an arbitrary fashion and so as to ensure full conformity with the Convention.

Concerning the second issue regarding section 11B of the IRO, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers, who may be working in more than one job, may organize to defend their interests in their respective occupations.

Noting the indication in the Government’s report that the draft Labour Code has been finalized and is under the active consideration of the Government, the Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to bring the legislation into conformity with the Convention on the abovementioned points. It requests the Government to keep it informed of all developments in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report.

It notes in particular the Government’s indication that the issue concerning the workers’ right of association in the Security Printing Press is under active consideration. The Committee notes that the draft Labour Code has been finalized and that the Government is in the process of placing it before Parliament. The Committee trusts that the necessary measures will be taken in the very near future to amend the legislation, in order to bring it into full conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It requests the Government to transmit a copy of the draft Labour Code, so that it may examine its conformity with the Convention.

The Committee recalls in this respect its previous comments concerning serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the Convention:

-  the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right of association under the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969;

-  restrictions on activities of public servants’ associations (Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979);

-  restrictions regarding membership in trade unions and election of union officers (section 7-A(1)(b) of the IRO and section 3 of Act No. 22 of 1990);

-  excessive external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions (Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977);

-  the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union (sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the IRO);

-  denial of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones (EPZ Authority Act, 1980);

-  restrictions on the right to strike (sections 28, 32(2) and (4), 33(1), 57 and 59 of the IRO).

The Committee hopes that the Government will continue the process of its labour laws and will amend the legislation referred to above, to ensure that it is brought into line with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any progress made in this regard.

In addition, a request regarding certain points is being addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

The Committee recalls that sections 11A(1) and (2) and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969, deny the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds as well as the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union at a time.

Concerning the first issue raised by section 11A(1) and (2) of the IRO, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that such restrictions are aimed to prevent trade union multiplicity and ensure protection of public money. While noting the Government’s indication that some flexibility must be ensured in order to permit newly formed organizations to collect membership dues necessary to their registration by virtue of section 6, the Committee considers that these provisions may seriously hinder the creation of new organizations. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend its legislation in order to ensure that such flexibility will not be applied in an arbitrary fashion and so as to ensure full conformity with the Convention.

Concerning the second issue regarding section 11B of the IRO, the Committee notes with regret that no progress has been made in that respect. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that workers, who may be working in more than one job, may organize to defend their interests in their respective occupations.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report.

The Committee notes with regret that no additional information has been provided and that despite its numerous requests, the legislation remains unchanged.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the following serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the provisions of the Convention.

Managerial and administrative staff and other exclusions from
the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO)

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that persons carrying out managerial or administrative functions were excluded from the definition of the term "worker" and thus denied the right of association set out in section 3(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO). The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its latest report that managerial and administrative staff come within the definition of "employer" under section 2(viii) of the IRO and in that capacity they can form their association of employers under section 3(b) of the IRO.

The Committee recalls that restrictions on the right to organize for managerial staff may be permitted in order to prevent interference in trade union activities provided that the persons concerned have the right to form their own organizations to defend their interests (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 87). The Committee considers however that defining such workers as employers for the purpose of forming associations does not respond to their needs to defend their interests as employees. It therefore requests that the Government indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that managerial and administrative personnel may organize to defend their interests as employees and provide any available information on the number and size of associations formed by them.

The Committee also recalls that the workers of the Security Printing Press are not covered by the IRO and asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that these workers have the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing to defend their interests.

Restrictions regarding membership in trade unions and election of union officers

For many years, the Committee had noted that section 7A(1)(b) of the IRO prevents persons who are not current or former employees of an establishment or group of establishments during the previous year from becoming members or officers of a trade union in an establishment or group of establishments. It notes with regret that the Government does not consider that this provision needs to be amended. The Committee wishes to emphasize that under Article 2 of the Convention, all workers shall have the right to organize and that this right should not be subjected to a required period of employment.

The Committee had further noted that section 3 of Act No. 22, 1990, provided that a worker dismissed for misconduct was not entitled to become an officer of a trade union. The Committee recalls that provisions of this type infringe the organization’s right to elect representatives in full freedom by preventing qualified persons from carrying out union duties or by depriving unions of the benefit of the experience of certain officers when they are unable to provide enough qualified persons from among their own ranks. When national legislation imposes conditions of this kind on all trade union leaders, there is also a real risk of interference by the employer through the dismissal of trade union officers, which deprives them of their trade union office (see 1994 General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 117).

The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to repeal sections 3 and 7A(1)(b) so that workers may fully enjoy the right to organize and so that workers’ organizations may elect their officers freely in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention.

Restrictions on activities of public servants’ associations

In its previous comments, the Committee recalled that the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, restricted the right of public servants to issue publications. The Committee noted that the permitted subject matters of publications by public servants were extremely limited and did not include basic trade union issues, and as such did not allow for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas. The Committee once again recalls that the measures which impose prior restraint on the subject matter of trade union publications are contrary to the right of workers’ organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes without interference from public authorities, and requests once again the Government to take measures to amend the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules in this respect.

Excessive external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions

The Committee recalls that under Rule 10 of the Industrial Relation Rules 1977, the Registrar of Trade Unions has the power to enter trade union offices, inspect documents, etc., and that this authority is not subject to judicial review.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement in its latest report to the effect that the Registrar may enter the office of a registered trade union in order to see whether the laws, rules or provisions of its constitution are being implemented or not. The Government states in particular that the Registrar receives complaints from union members alleging misappropriation of union funds and many irregularities that are allegedly committed by union officers. According to the Government, the Registrar must be able to enter a trade union office with reasonable cause to see whether the complaints filed are founded on facts. The Government adds that the Registrar never supervises the activities of a trade union and that trade unions are governed by their constitutions and the laws of the country.

The Committee recalls in this respect that the right of workers’ and employers’ organizations to organize their administration without interference by the public authorities includes in particular autonomy and financial independence and the protection of the assets and property of these organizations (see 1994 General Survey, op. cit., paragraph 124). There is no violation of the Convention if such verification is limited to exceptional cases, for example in order to investigate a complaint, or if there have been allegations of embezzlement. Both the substance and the procedure of such verifications should however always be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording every guarantee of impartiality and objectivity (ibid., paragraph 125).

The Committee therefore once again requests that the Government take the necessary measures to amend these rules so as to ensure that such broad authority of the Registrar may be subject to judicial review.

Registration requirement

The Committee recalls its previous comments regarding sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the IRO which impose a minimum membership requirement of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments for initial and continued union registration.

The Committee notes once again the Government’s indication that this registration requirement was mainly adopted with an objective of reducing the mushroom growth of trade unions and unwieldy multiplicity of unions.

The Committee considers however that such a requirement severely restricts the right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing. It suggests rather that the Government give consideration to granting certain preferential status for collective bargaining purposes to the most representative trade unions as a way of reducing union fragmentation and multiplicity.

It must once again request that the Government amend these provisions so as to ensure that workers may form and join organizations of their own choosing in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention.

Right to organize and to bargain collectively in export processing zones (EPZs)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government to the effect that the IRO and other labour laws will be implemented in EPZs from 2004 and as a result the workers in EPZs will be able to enjoy the legal rights to organize and bargain collectively.

Recalling once again that workers in EPZs should be guaranteed the same rights under the Convention as all other workers, the Committee requests that the Government transmit a copy of the draft legislation ensuring that EPZs will be covered by the IRO and other labour laws and keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.

Restrictions on the right to strike

The Committee notes with regret that no progress has been made in amending the various dispositions of the IRO concerning industrial action. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the following discrepancies between the legislation and Article 3 of the Convention: (i) the necessity for three-quarters of the members of a workers’ organization to consent to a strike (section 28); (ii) the possibility of prohibiting strikes lasting more than 30 days (section 32(2)) and of prohibiting a strike at any time if it is considered prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(4)) or involves a public utility service (section 33(1)); and (iii) the nature of penalties that may be imposed in respect of participation in unlawful industrial action (sections 57 and 59), including imprisonment.

As concerns the provisions setting forth sanctions for illegal strike action, including imprisonment, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that these provisions are aimed at ensuring that no illegal activities are conducted either by workers or by employers. The Committee emphasizes however that the application of disproportionate penal sanctions does not favour the development of harmonious and stable industrial relations; if measures of imprisonment are to be imposed at all they should be justified by the seriousness of the offences committed (see 1994 General Survey, paragraph 177).

The Committee once again requests that the Government indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend the legislation to ensure that the abovementioned sections concerning industrial action are brought into line with the provisions of the Convention, in particular as concerns the severity of the sanctions which may be imposed for illegal strike action.

The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the availability of the technical assistance of the ILO in respect of all the above matters.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee recalls that sections 11A(1) and (2) and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969, deny the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds as well as the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union at a time.

On the first point, the Committee pointed out that it would appear illegal for a union to collect funds prior to being registered and yet the requirement of a secure membership base for registration would be difficult to obtain without the union being able to collect dues and provide at least some level of service to members or potential members. The Government states in this regard that section 6 of the IRO provides enough scope for preliminary rights to establish a secure membership base prior to registration. Noting that section 6 addresses requirements for an application to register, the Committee requests the Government to specify how and to what extent it provides preliminary rights to unregistered unions.

On the issue of prohibiting workers from belonging to more than one union, the Committee has pointed out that this would hinder those holding more than one job from assuring the defence of their occupational interests. The Government replies that allowing workers in such a situation to join more than one union "is considered unrealistic, and as such the restriction is justified". The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will reconsider its position in order to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention, and requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report, the statement made by the Government representative to the 1998 Conference Committee and the discussion that followed.

The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for many years on the following serious discrepancies between the national legislation and the provisions of the Convention: the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right of association under the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969; restrictions on the right of association of public servants; restrictions concerning holding trade union office; excessive external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions; the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union; denial of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones (EPZs); restrictions on the right to strike.

The Committee notes with regret that, save for some developments in relation to EPZs discussed below, the Government practically reiterates the same arguments it has been making for many years and that, despite repeated observations to the same effect, serious discrepancies continue to exist between the national legislation and the Convention on the issues mentioned above. The Committee also notes that this total lack of progress, 28 years after the ratification of the Convention, was noted once again with great concern by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards during its discussion of these issues in 1999. The Committee further notes that during that discussion, the Government’s representative stated that all these points were examined by a tripartite Labour Code Review Committee (established in 1992, but which did not report), and that the Ministry of Labour had decided to set up a mechanism within the Ministry to "thoroughly examine the issue and make recommendations to correct any discordance between the Convention and the existing legislation". The Committee regrets to be unable, on this point as well, to note any progress whatsoever on these commitments of the Government.

As regards EPZs, whilst the arguments advanced are essentially the same as those of previous years (i.e. that union-free EPZs are an economic necessity to attract foreign investment, and that workers in these zones enjoy better facilities and service conditions than workers in other industrial sectors), the Committee notes that the Government indicates it is now taking necessary steps to form a labour welfare committee in EPZs. Recalling that workers in EPZs should have the same rights as other workers, the Committee firmly hopes that said labour welfare committee will be set up rapidly, and requests the Government to provide information in its next report on concrete measures taken and progress achieved in this respect.

In these circumstances, the Committee is bound to refer to its previous detailed observations and, recalling once again that the Government may avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO, urges it to amend its legislation accordingly in the very near future.

In addition, a request regarding certain points is being addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2001.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report.

The Committee recalls that sections 11A(1) and (2) and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO), deny the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds as well as the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union at a time. On the first point, the Committee pointed out that it would appear illegal for a union to collect funds prior to being registered and yet the requirement of a secure membership base for registration would be difficult to obtain without the union being able to collect dues and provide at least some level of service to members or potential members. The Government states in this regard that section 6 of the IRO provides enough scope for preliminary rights to establish a secure membership base prior to registration. Noting that section 6 addresses requirements for an application to register, the Committee requests the Government to specify how and to what extent it provides preliminary rights to unregistered unions.

On the issue of prohibiting workers from belonging to more than one union, the Committee has pointed out that this would hinder those holding more than one job from assuring the defence of their occupational interests. The Government replies that allowing workers in such a situation to join more than one union "is considered unrealistic, and as such the restriction is justified". The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will reconsider its position in order to bring its legislation into full conformity with the Convention, and requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's report, and the statement made by the Government representative to the 1998 Conference Committee and the discussion that followed. The Committee also takes note of the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 1862 (306th Report, 308th Report and 311th Report).

The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for a number of years concerning the following discrepancies between the national legislation and the provisions of the Convention:

-- the exclusion of managerial and administrative employees from the right of association under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO);

-- restrictions on the right of association of public servants;

-- restrictions regarding holding trade union office;

-- excessive external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions;

-- the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union;

-- denial of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones;

-- restrictions on the right to strike.

In addition, the Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has brought to its attention, in the context of Case No. 1862, the inability to register a trade union on a nationwide basis or a union comprising workers from different establishments owned by different employers (see 306th Report, paragraph 103).

Managerial and administrative functions

In its previous observations, the Committee has commented on the exclusion from the definition of "worker" of persons carrying out managerial or administrative functions, thus denying them the right of association set out in section 3(a) of the IRO. In its last observation, the Committee noted the two main public sector associations referred to by the Government that had been established for these workers, and requested the Government to provide specific information on the number and size of other such associations, including those in the private sector. The Committee also requested the Government to specify which legislative provision grants the right of association to persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions in the private sector.

The Committee notes the Government's statement to the Conference Committee that while these workers cannot form trade unions under the IRO, they are able to form associations for the advancement of their rights and interests by virtue of article 38 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, which gives every citizen the right to form an association or union subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of morality and public order. In its latest report, the Government states that there is no legal bar for managerial or administrative personnel in the private sector, and points to the fact that various banking and insurance companies have officers' welfare associations to promote their service interests. The Government also lists a number of public sector associations, and states that in addition there are officers' welfare associations in the public sector, but that information as to their number and size is not currently available.

The Committee takes note of the Government's reference to article 38 of the Constitution, and requests the Government to provide further information as to the substance of the right to associate under the Constitution, including how the restrictions foreseen thereunder have been applied, and the recourse available to workers where a violation of this constitutional right is alleged. As article 38 of the Constitution only applies to "citizens", the Committee requests the Government to specify how non-citizens carrying out managerial or administrative functions are able to exercise the right of association. The Committee also looks forward to receiving information on the number and size of the associations, private and public sector, that have been established to further the occupational interests of those carrying out managerial and administrative functions.

Right of association of public servants

The Committee notes that the Government continues to assert that the legislation with respect to public servants is in conformity with the Convention. According to the statement of the Government representative to the Conference Committee, even though public servants are not covered by the IRO, they do have the right to form associations to advance their interests due to the constitutional right to associate referred to above. The Committee notes further that the Government states that matters concerning the exclusion of workers at the Security Printing Press from trade unions are to be placed before the Review Committee now reviewing the draft Labour Code. The Committee notes that the Government has been making this comment for a number of years, and expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken without further delay to ensure that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, are guaranteed the right to organize, and requests the Government to indicate any progress made in this regard.

The Committee has also raised concerns with respect to the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, restricting the right of public servants to issue publications. The Government replies in this context that public servants can publish any research based on culture, sports, development works and scientific matters in any newspaper or journal without prior approval; they can also publish any other matter with prior approval of the authority, pursuant to Rules 21 and 22 of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules. The Committee notes that an extremely limited range of matters may be the subject-matter of publications by public servants, which does not include basic trade union issues, and as such does not allow for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas.

The Committee again recalls that the measures which impose prior restraint on the subject-matter of trade union publications are contrary to the right of workers' organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes without interference from public authorities, and requests the Government to take measures to amend the above-noted rules accordingly.

Restrictions regarding holding trade union office

In its previous comments, the Committee has drawn attention to legislative provisions that excessively restrict the right of workers' organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. In particular, the Committee noted that section 7-A(1)(b) of the IRO prevents persons who are not current or former employees of an establishment or group of establishments from becoming members or officers of a trade union in such an establishment or group of establishments. In addition, section 3 of Act No. 22 of 1990 provides that a worker dismissed for misconduct shall not be entitled to become an officer of a trade union.

The Government representative to the Conference Committee stated that a worker dismissed for misconduct might seek revenge against the management, which could hinder normal union activities, industrial peace and productivity. In its report, the Government contends that the relevant provisions do not need to be amended. The Committee must again point out that such legislation entails the risk of interference by the employer through the dismissal of trade union members or leaders for exercising legitimate trade union activities, with the result (or even the intention) of depriving them in future of holding a position as a trade union officer. The Committee remains of the view that section 7-A(1)(b) of the IRO and section 3 of the 1990 Act are contrary to the right of workers' organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom, and urges the Government to take measures to have the provisions amended to bring them into conformity with the Convention. The Committee reminds the Government in the context of section 7-A(1)(b), that it does not object to an occupational requirement being imposed for some of the officers of an organization, as long as a reasonable proportion are exempted from such requirement.

Excessive external supervision

The Committee has previously commented that the powers of the Registrar of Trade Unions to enter trade union premises, inspect documents, etc., under Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977, is not subject to judicial review. The Government states in its report that the powers of the Registrar to inspect documents are exercised in order to ensure that the rules of the organization and the relevant provisions of the labour laws are observed, and to provide adequate safeguards with respect to trade union funds. The Government states that the law provides that the Registrar under section 10(2) of the IRO is to obtain prior permission from the Labour Court before taking any penal action against unions for contravention of any provisions of the laws. The Government concludes that "it is evident that the powers of supervision of the (Registrar) are clearly under judicial review". The Committee regrets that, while it has previously requested the Government to indicate the provisions that subject such powers of supervision to judicial review, the Government has failed to do so, referring only to section 10(2) of the IRO which provides that the Registrar is to submit an application to the Labour Court for permission to cancel the registration of a trade union. The Committee notes that the provision referred to by the Government in no way limits the Registrar's powers to enter premises and inspect documents and does not subject the substance and procedure of the Registrar's verifications to review by an impartial judicial authority. Noting again that there does not appear to be any limits on the Registrar's powers under Rule 10 to enter trade union premises and inspect documents, etc., and that this power is not subject to judicial review, the Committee asks the Government to amend this provision to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

Registration requirements

The Committee recalls that it has been commenting for several years on the lack of conformity with Article 2 of the Convention of provisions of the IRO imposing a requirement for initial and continued registration that a trade union have a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed (sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g)). Furthermore, the non-conformity of these provisions with the Convention was also raised by the Committee on Freedom of Association (see Case No. 1862, 306th Report, paragraph 102). The Committee also notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has raised other related concerns, namely that there is no legal provision enabling the registration of a trade union on a nationwide basis and that, pursuant to a court decision, registration of a union comprising workers from different establishments owned by different employers is prohibited (see 306th Report, paragraph 103). The Committee notes in this regard that the right of workers to form organizations of their own choosing implies the free determination of the structure and composition of trade unions.

The Government again asserts that sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) are in conformity with the Convention, and states that the requirement "has checked the multiplicity of trade unions which is obviously counterproductive for the workers". The Committee notes, however, that, according to the statement of the Government representative to the Conference Committee, the Government was considering taking measures in the near future concerning these provisions. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to ensure that the registration provisions are brought into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention.

Export processing zones

The Committee notes that the amendments proposed by the National Labour Law Commission (NLLC), referred to in a previous government report, to extend the provisions of the IRO and related laws to workers in export processing zones not only have not been adopted, but it appears from the Government's latest report that the issue has been resubmitted to a different body for consideration, namely the Review Committee on the Draft Labour Code. The Government also states in its report that the restrictions on the formation of trade unions in export processing zones "are temporary measures necessitated by the national situation, the level of development and the specific circumstances within Bangladesh". The Committee notes that such a fundamental right as the right to organize should not be denied to workers, even temporarily, and that this would constitute a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. In any event, the Committee is of the view that the Export Processing Zones Authority Act which provides for the exemption of the zones from the operation of the IRO, cannot be considered a "temporary measure", in view of the fact that it was adopted in 1980. Due to the seriousness of the violation of such an important right, the Committee urges the Government to take measures without further delay to ensure that workers in export processing zones are entitled to exercise all the rights under the Convention.

Restrictions on the right to strike

In its previous comments, the Committee has repeatedly raised concerns with respect to several provisions of the IRO limiting the right to strike and other forms of industrial action, in violation of the principles of freedom of association. The Committee has commented in particular on the following provisions: (i) the necessity for three-quarters of the members of a workers' organization to consent to a strike (section 28); (ii) the possibility of prohibiting strikes lasting more than 30 days (section 32(2)) and of prohibiting a strike at any time if it is considered prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(4)) or involves a public utility service (section 33(1)); and (iii) the nature of the penalties that may be imposed in respect of participation in unlawful industrial action (sections 57 to 59), including imprisonment. The Committee notes the statement made by the Government representative to the Conference Committee to the effect that the provisions noted above have been examined by the National Labour Law Commission whose report was still being studied by the Government. The Committee notes with interest the further statement of the Government representative that the Government would welcome the technical assistance of the International Labour Office concerning the implementation of the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government's statement that the powers of prohibiting a strike are exercised only in circumstances of national crisis, in conformity with the justification permitted by the Committee. The Committee notes that, while restrictions on strikes may at present only be imposed in circumstances of national crisis, the legislative provisions allow for restrictions to be imposed extending far beyond such circumstances; thus the provisions should be amended accordingly to bring them in line with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee recalls that, while the Committee is of the view that strikes can be restricted in the case of an acute national crisis, this must be limited to a genuine crisis situation, such as those arising from a serious conflict, insurrection or natural disaster, and any such restriction should be imposed only for a limited period and to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the situation (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraph 152). The Committee, therefore, asks the Government to take the necessary measures to have the legislation amended to ensure that restrictions on the right to strike are confined accordingly.

The Committee notes with regret that no progress has been made by the Government in attempting to bring its legislation into fuller conformity with the requirements of the Convention, and that the Government continues to assert that the legislation does not violate the Convention, despite the repeated comments of the Committee to the contrary. In addition, according to information received by the ILO, it seems that trade union activities in the banking sector have been suspended since January 1998. Furthermore, several applications for registration by trade unions in the textile, metal and garment sector were rejected on unjustified grounds. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report concerning these serious allegations.

The Committee asks the Government to review and amend the legislation referred to above, taking into account the Committee's comments, and to inform it of any progress made in this regard. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government, having stated that it would welcome ILO technical assistance concerning the implementation of the Convention, will indeed accept such assistance in the near future.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes that the Government states in its report that it has noted the Committee's comments.

The Committee recalls that sections 11A(1) and (2) and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, deny the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds as well as the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union at a time. As concerns the latter, the Committee considers that while the limit of one union for one worker is understandable for workers with one job, it would however hinder workers who may have more than one job or more than one place of employment from assuring the defence of their occupational interests in the respective establishments. As regards the functioning of unregistered unions, the Committee points out once again that, under current law, it would appear to be illegal for a union to collect funds prior to being registered and yet the requirement of a secure membership base for registration would be difficult to obtain without the union being able to collect dues and provide at least some level of service to members or potential members. The Government should therefore take measures to ensure certain preliminary rights for unregistered trade unions, so that they may provide services enabling them to secure sufficient membership to obtain registration.

The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future to bring these provisions into full conformity with the Convention and recalls that the technical assistance of the ILO is available on these issues if the Government so desires it.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report, as well as the oral information supplied by the Government to the Conference Committee in June 1995 and the detailed discussion which took place thereafter. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the following points:

- the right of association of persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions;

- the right of association of public servants;

- restrictions on the range of persons who can hold office in trade unions;

- the extent of external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions;

- the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union,

- denial of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones; and

- restrictions on the right to strike.

Managerial and administrative functions

In its previous observation, the Committee had noted the Government's statement that, while persons carrying out managerial or administrative functions were excluded from the definition of "worker" in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO), and thus denied the right of association set out in section 3(a) of the IRO, such persons could form associations in order to further their professional interests. The Committee had requested the Government to indicate which legislative provisions granted the right of association to persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions, and to provide information on the number and size of such associations.

The Government states in its report that the Bangladesh Civil Service Administration Association has about 6,000 members and the Bangladesh Civil Service Economic Association about 600 members, while other such associations exist for difference cadres and non-cadres.

The Committee notes, however, that the Government still does not indicate which legislative provisions grant the right of association to persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions in the private sector and requests it to do so in its next report. The Committee notes moreover that apart from providing some information on the two main associations, the Government confines itself to stating that "other such associations exist for different cadres and non-cadres". The Committee would once again request the Government to provide specific information in its next report on the number and size of "other such associations".

Right of association of public servants

The Committee notes the Government's reiteration that its legislation is in conformity with the requirements of the Convention with respect to public servants. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the Government's statements that public servants, while not covered by the IRO, do have the right to form associations to advance their causes. The Committee had recalled, however, that such associations were subject to certain restrictions relating to their activities (in particular, as regards their rights to issue publications) by virtue of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, which were not in conformity with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that measures which impose prior restraint on the subject matter of trade union publications are contrary to the right of workers' organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes without interference from public authorities. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to bring these rules into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that the draft Labour Code would appear to continue to exclude workers at the Security Printing Press and public servants. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to ensure that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, are guaranteed the right to organize and requests the Government to indicate the progress made in this regard.

Restrictions on the range of persons who can hold office in trade unions

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that section 7-A(1)(b) of the IRO prevented persons who were not current or former employees of an establishment or group of establishments from becoming members or officers of a trade union in such an establishment or group of establishments. Furthermore, with reference to section 3 of Act. No. 22 of 1990 amending the IRO which provides that a worker dismissed for misconduct shall not be entitled to become an officer of a trade union, the Committee had considered that the provisions were contrary to the right of workers' organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom.

According to the statement made by the Government representative to the Conference Committee, the admission of workers dismissed for misconduct, either as union members or officers, would hinder normal union activities as well as industrial peace and productivity. In the Government's view, section 7-A(1)(b) of the IRO promoted rather than restricted the right of workers to choose their representatives.

The Committee points out to the Government, however, that such legislation entails the risk of interference by the employer through the dismissal of trade union members or leaders for exercising legitimate trade union activities with the result (or even the intention) of depriving them in the future from holding a position as a trade union officer. The Committee therefore once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will ensure that these provisions are amended to provide for greater flexibility in relation to membership and the holding of trade union office by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation (including workers who have been dismissed) or by exempting from occupational requirements a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization.

External supervision

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the powers of the Registrar of Trade Unions to enter trade union premises, inspect documents, etc. under Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977, were not subject to judicial review. The Committee had drawn the Government's attention in this regard to paragraph 125 of its General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining in which it had considered that there was no infringement of the right of organizations to organize their administration if the supervision by the public authorities of the organization's financial situation was limited to the obligation to submit periodic financial reports or if there were serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization were contrary to its rules or the law. In any event, the Committee had concluded that the substance and the procedure of such verifications should always be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording every guarantee of impartiality and objectivity.

The Government states in its report that any action of the Registrar can be challenged in a court of law.

The Committee requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, the legislative provisions that limit the Registrar's powers of supervision to verifying that the law and the organization's rules are respected. It further requests the Government to indicate the provisions that subject such powers of supervision to judicial review.

The 30 per cent requirement

For several years now, the Committee has been asking the Government to review sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the IRO in order to bring them into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention. The first of these provisions is to the effect that no trade union may be registered unless it has a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed. The second gives the Registrar of Trade Unions the power to cancel the registration of a union where its membership has fallen below the 30 per cent threshold.

The Government states once again that this requirement helps check the multiplicity of trade unions in Bangladesh which would adversely affect workers' interests. In any event, in an establishment meeting this requirement, up to three unions could be registered. Moreover, there were provisions for determining a collective bargaining agent. It adds, however, that the recommendation of the National Labour Laws Commission (NLLC) in this regard is being considered by the Government.

The Committee, considering that these provisions restrict the right of all workers to organize, hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to ensure full conformity with Article 2 of the Convention and requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.

Denial of the right to organize in export processing zones

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that amendments proposing the extension of the provisions of the IRO and other related laws to workers in export processing zones (EPZs) had not yet been adopted although some workers in these zones seemed to have been allowed to form trade unions in anticipation of these amendments.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that the NLLC has submitted a report on this issue which is being studied by the Government. This report would eventually be submitted as a Bill to Parliament. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the NLLC report recommends the complete extension of the provisions of the IRO and other related laws to workers in EPZs. It requests the Government to provide detailed information in this respect in its next report.

Restrictions on the right to strike

In its previous comments, the Committee had recalled the concerns which it had been raising over a number of years with respect to several provisions in the IRO which limited strikes and other forms of industrial action in a manner which was not in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. In particular: (i) the necessity for three-quarters of the members of a workers' organization to consent to a strike (section 28); (ii) the possibility of prohibiting strikes which last more than 30 days (section 32(2)) and of prohibiting a strike at any time if it is considered prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(4)) or involve a "public utility service" (section 33(1)); and (iii) the nature of the penalties which may be imposed in respect of participation in unlawful industrial action (sections 57, 58 and 59), including the possibility of imprisonment.

The Committee nevertheless had indicated that it was mindful of the difficulties which might arise during acute national crises. It had recalled that it had always recognized that in such cases the right to strike could be circumscribed for a limited period of time. Furthermore, strike action could be restricted or prohibited in relation to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or for workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population or in the case of an acute national crisis. The Committee had considered, however, that the above-mentioned restrictions on strikes and other related actions in the IRO went beyond the above situations and categories of workers.

The Government states in its report that it has taken note of the Committee's comments in relation to this issue. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary steps in the near future to amend these provisions in order to bring them into full conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.

The Committee had noted previously that the tripartite National Labour Law Commission (NLLC) had undertaken a review of labour legislation and that a new Labour Code had been drafted. The Committee trusts that this draft Labour Code will fully take into account the Committee's comments on all of the points raised above. In this respect, it reminds the Government that the technical assistance of the International Labour Office is at its disposal if it so wishes.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its latest report.

1. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that sections 11A(1) and (2) and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, deny the rights of unregistered unions to function and to collect funds as well as the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union at a time. As concerns the latter, the Committee considers that while the limit of one union for one worker is understandable for workers with one job, it would however hinder workers who may have more than one job or more than one place of employment from assuring the defence of their occupational interests in the respective establishments. As concerns the functioning of unregistered unions, the Committee notes the indication in the Government's report that the unfettered right to form trade unions without the requirement of registration would lead to fragmentation in the leadership of workers and weaken their bargaining capacity, as well destabilize industrial peace. The Government adds that the workers agree with this approach and that it is not aware of any problem of unions realizing funds before registration. While noting the Government's statement, the Committee would point out that, under current law, it would appear to be illegal for a union to collect funds prior to being registered and yet the requirement of a secure membership base for registration would be difficult to obtain without the union being able to collect dues and provide at least some level of service to members or potential members. The Government may therefore wish to consider bringing its law into conformity with practice by taking measures to ensure certain preliminary rights for unregistered trade unions, so that they may provide services enabling them to secure sufficient membership to obtain registration.

2. The Committee would recall the comments it has been raising for a number of years concerning provisions in the Industrial Relations Ordinance restricting strikes and other forms of industrial action. In particular: (i) the fact that only a collective bargaining agent can give notice of a lawful strike seems to deprive workers in the unorganized sector as well as members of minority unions of the right to strike (sections 28, 43 and 46(1)(b)); and (ii) section 59 of the Ordinance which makes it an offence to take part in, instigate, etc. a "go-slow" when such restrictions, in the Committee's view, are justified only if the action is not peaceful. The Committee hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future to bring these provisions into full conformity with the Convention and recalls that the assistance of the ILO is available on these issues if the Government so desires it.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its latest report. It recalls that its previous comments concerned the following points:

-- the right of association of persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions;

-- the right of association of public servants and the denial of the right to organize of certain groups of workers in a number of sectors of the economy, inter alia, rural electrification, civil aviation, jute research, bank security printing press;

-- restrictions on the range of persons who can hold office in trade unions;

-- the extent of external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions;

-- the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union;

-- denial of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones; and

-- restrictions on the right to strike.

The Committee notes with interest that the Government has been undertaking a review of its labour legislation by a tripartite National Labour Law Commission (NLLC) and that a new Labour Code has been drafted which would appear to extend coverage of the labour legislation, including the right to organize, to certain categories of workers previously excluded, such as the workers employed by the Civil Aviation Authority and those working at the Jute Research Institute. The Committee notes with regret, however, that a number of provisions in the previous legislation which were not in conformity with the Convention have remained unchanged in the draft Labour Code. It therefore expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to bring its legislation into conformity with the provisions of the Convention with respect to the following points.

Managerial and administrative functions

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the Government's statement that, while persons carrying out managerial or administrative functions are excluded from the definition of "worker" in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and thus denied the right of association set out in section 3(a) of the Ordinance, such persons can form associations in order to further their professional interests. The Committee recalled that forbidding such persons from joining unions representing other workers was not necessarily incompatible with the requirements of the Convention provided that they had the right to form their own organizations to defend their interests, and that the categories of managerial staff were not so broadly defined that the organizations of other workers in the establishment or branch of activity were weakened by being deprived of a substantial proportion of their actual or potential membership (see 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 87). The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate which legislative provisions ensure that persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions may establish and join their own associations to further their occupational interests, and to provide information on the number and size of such associations as well as their functions.

Right of association of public servants

The Committee notes the Government's indication that its legislation is in conformity with the requirements of the Convention with respect to public servants. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the Government's statements that public servants, while not covered by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, do have the right to form associations to advance their causes. The Committee had recalled, however, that such associations were subject to certain restrictions relating to their activities (in particular, as regards their rights to issue publications) by virtue of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, which were not in conformity with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that measures which impose prior restraint on the subject matter of trade union publications are contrary to the right of workers' organizations to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes without interference from public authorities. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to bring these rules into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Furthermore, while noting that the draft Labour Code extends its coverage to workers in the Civil Aviation Authority and the Jute Research Institute, the draft would appear to continue to exclude workers at the Security Printing Press and public servants. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to ensure that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, are guaranteed the right to organize and requests the Government to indicate the progress made in this regard.

Restrictions on the range of persons who can hold office in trade unions

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 7-A(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance prevents persons who are not current or former employees of an establishment or group of establishments from becoming members or officers of a trade union in such an establishment or group of establishments. Furthermore, with reference to section 3 of Act. No. 22 of 1990 amending the Industrial Relations Ordinance which provides that a dismissed worker shall not be entitled to become an officer of a trade union, the Committee considered that the provisions are contrary to the right of workers' organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. It expresses the hope that, following the review of the labour laws, the Government will amend these provisions to provide for greater flexibility in relation to office-holding in trade unions by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation (including workers who have been dismissed) or by exempting from occupational requirements a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization.

External supervision

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the powers of the Registrar of Trade Unions to enter trade union premises, inspect documents, etc. under Rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977, were not subject to judicial review. The Committee draws the Government's attention in this regard to paragraph 125 of its General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining in which it has considered that there is no infringement of the right of organizations to organize their administration if the supervision by the public authorities of the organization's financial situation is limited to the obligation to submit periodic financial reports or if there are serious grounds for believing that the actions of an organization are contrary to its rules or the law. In any event, the Committee has concluded that the substance and the procedure of such verifications should always be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording every guarantee of impartiality and objectivity. Noting that there appear to be no limits to the Registrar's power under Rule 10(2) to inspect the account books of a registered union and that this power is not subject to any judicial review, the Government is requested to amend this provision according to the above-mentioned principles.

The 30 per cent requirement

For several years now, the Committee has been asking the Government to review sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which impose, respectively, 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, in order to bring them into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention. The Government has once again indicated that it considers this requirement reasonable and adds that it helps check multiplicity of trade unions which adversely affects workers' interests. It adds, however, that the recommendation of the NLLC in this respect is being studied. The Committee, considering that these provisions extensively restrict the right of all workers to organize, hopes that the necessary measures will be taken in the near future to ensure full conformity with Article 2 of the Convention and requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.

Denial of the right to organize in export processing zones

The Committee notes with regret from the Government's report that the amendments proposing the extension of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and other related laws to workers in export processing zones (EPZs) have not yet been adopted. While noting that some workers in these zones seem to have been allowed to form trade unions in anticipation of these amendments, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the number of workers' organizations which have already been set up in the EPZs, the size of their memberships and their functions, as well as to indicate the progress made in extending the coverage of the Industrial Relations Ordinance to these workers.

Restrictions on the right to strike

The Committee notes the statement in the Government's report that the economic condition of the country does not permit workers to go on frequent strike as this would pose a threat to maintaining their livelihood and cripple the economy. Nevertheless, the Committee must recall the concerns which it has been raising over a number of years with respect to several provisions in the Industrial Relations Ordinance which limit strikes and other forms of industrial action in a manner which is not in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. In particular: (i) the necessity for three-quarters of the members of a workers' organization to consent to a strike (section 28); (ii) the possibility of prohibiting strikes which last more than 30 days (section 32(2)) and of prohibiting a strike at any time if it is considered prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(4)) or involve a "public utility service" (section 33(1)); and (iii) the nature of the penalties which may be imposed in respect of participation in unlawful industrial action (sections 57, 58 and 59), including the possibility of imprisonment.

Mindful of the difficulties which might arise during acute national crises, the Committee recalls that it has always recognized that in such cases the right to strike may be circumscribed for a limited period of time. Furthermore, strike action may be restricted or prohibited in relation to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or for workers in essential services in the strict sense of the term, that is, services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population or in the case of an acute national crisis. The Committee considers, however, that the above-mentioned restrictions on strikes and other related actions in the Industrial Relations Ordinance go beyond the above situations and categories of workers. It expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary steps in the near future to amend these provisions in order to bring them into full conformity with the Convention.

The Committee would also remind the Government that the assistance of the International Labour Office is available on any of these points if so desired.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes that the Government has not supplied any information in response to its 1991 direct request. It therefore repeats its previous direct request which read as follows:

1. The Committee has asked the Government to provide certain information in relation to sections 11A(1) and (2) and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which deny the rights to function and to collect funds of unregistered unions and the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union at a time. The Government indicates that both provisions are still in force, that they had been introduced in the greater interest of workers, and that in the Government's opinion they did not restrict the workers' right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing.

The Committee notes the Government's reply, but must reiterate that these provisions do not appear to be in conformity with the guarantees provided by Article 2 of the Convention. Accordingly, it asks the Government to introduce the necessary amendments to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention. In doing so the Committee would point out that a strict interpretation of section 11A would make it virtually impossible to establish any new trade union. This is because a union in the process of being established could not lawfully collect funds or function as a trade union until it had been registered, but it could not secure registration until it had established a secure membership base which in turn would be virtually impossible without being able to collect subscriptions and to provide at least some level of service to members or potential members.

2. The Committee had expressed a number of concerns about various aspects of those provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which deal with strikes and other forms of industrial action. In particular: (i) the fact that only a collective bargaining agent can give notice of a lawful strike seems to deprive workers in the unorganized sector, and members of minority unions, of the right to strike (sections 28, 43 and 46(1)(b); (ii) the fact that lawful strike notice can be served only where at least 75 per cent of the members of the relevant bargaining agent have voted in favour (section 28) constitutes an unreasonable restriction upon the right to strike; (iii) the provisions which enable the Government to prohibit strikes which have lasted more than 30 days (section 32(2)), which entail serious hardship to the community or are prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(2)), or involve a "public utility service" (section 33(1)), appear to place restrictions on the right to strike which go beyond those which have been regarded as acceptable by the Committee; (iv) section 59 of the Ordinance which makes it an offence to take part in, instigate, etc. a "go-slow" in the Committee's view, such restrictions are justified only if the action is not peaceful; and (v) the nature of the penalties which may be imposed in respect of participation, etc. in unlawful industrial action (sections 57, 58 and 59) do not appear to be consistent with the principles on freedom of association.

In response to specific queries directed to it by the Committee, the Government indicates that since 1972 only five strikes have been prohibited by virtue of section 32(2), and four by virtue of section 33(1). The Government indicates that no workers or individuals have been prosecuted under any of sections 57, 58 and 59 since 1972. The 75 per cent voting requirement is necessary to ensure that workers' demands possess the necessary degree of credibility, whilst the strike prohibitions in sections 32 and 33 are needed in order to sustain the supply of essential goods and services to the community.

The Committee has always recognized that the right to strike may be circumscribed for a limited period in time of acute national crisis. It may also be restricted in relation to public servants exercising authority in the name of the State, and in relation to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Such restrictions should be compensated by the existence of adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures. Statutory restrictions on the methods used, or the conditions to be satisfied in advance of lawful strike action, should not be of such a character as to result in practice in a total prohibition or an excessive limitation of the exercise of the right to strike. Penalties for engaging in strikes and other forms of industrial action should be imposed only where there are violations of strike prohibitions which are themselves in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Furthermore, penalties should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed and if they are imposed at all, measures of imprisonment in any case should be subject to the regular judicial control.

The provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance outlined above do not appear to be compatible with these principles. Accordingly, the Committee calls upon the Government to introduce legislative amendments to bring its law and practice into full conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its reports as well as the observations of the Bangladesh Workers' Federation (BWF) and of the Bangladesh Employers' Association (BEA). It recalls that its previous comments concerned the following points:

- the right of association of persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions;

- the right of association of public servants;

- restrictions on the range of persons who can hold office in trade unions;

- the extent of external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions;

- the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union;

- denial of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones; and

- denial of the right to organize of certain groups of workers in a number of sectors of the economy, inter alia, rural electrification, civil aviation, jute research, bank security printing press).

Managerial and administrative functions

The Committee has noted on previous occasions that section 2(b)(viii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, excludes from the definitions of "worker" and "workmen" persons who exercise functions of a managerial or administrative nature, which has the consequence that such persons are denied the right of association set out in section 3(a) of the Ordinance and hence not entitled to the protection of the Ordinance.

The Committee notes from the Government's report that, while persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions do not join trade unions of workers, they can form their own associations for the advancement of their rights and interests. The Government further states that, since the number of persons engaged in managerial and administrative functions is limited to around 2 per cent of the total employed, they do not form their own associations in each establishment; instead they establish these associations at the national level. Some of these persons join associations of different professional groups, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Institution of Engineers, in order to further their professional interests.

The Committee has recognized in paragraph 66 of its 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining that forbidding such persons to join unions representing other workers is not necessarily incompatible with the requirements of the Convention provided that they have the right to form their own organizations to defend their interests, and that the categories of managerial staff are not so broadly defined that the organizations of other workers in the establishment or branch of activity are weakened by being deprived of a substantial proportion of their present or potential membership. The Committee requests the Government to indicate which legislative provisions entitle persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions to join associations to further their occupational interests. The Committee notes, moreover, that the Government does not mention the number and size of organizations which have been formed, in practice, in order to represent the interests of such workers. It would therefore request the Government once again to provide information in its next report on the number and size of such associations.

Right of association of public servants

The Government indicates that although public servants are excluded from the coverage of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, they are allowed to form their own associations to advance their causes. Moreover, these associations have their own executive committees, offices and funds, and meetings are held with a view to mitigating grievances of members. These associations also formulate charters of demands for submission to the Government and for negotiation on them.

While noting the Government's statement, the Committee observes that such associations are subject to certain interference by public authorities in relation to their activities, through the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979. It would point out once again that these restrictions are not in conformity with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, and requests the Government to take the necessary steps to bring its law and practice into full conformity with these provisions by removing the excessive restrictions.

Restrictions on the range of persons who can hold office in trade unions

The BWF states that section 7A(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, which disqualifies a worker from being a member or officer of a trade union formed in any establishment if he is not or was never employed or engaged in that establishment, restricts workers' freedom to elect their representatives. The Government indicates in its report that though formulated as a negative sentence, this provision facilitates the joining of workers in unions of a given establishment or a group of establishments.

The Committee would nevertheless point out that this provision prevents persons who are not current or former employees in the trade or industry concerned from becoming officers of a trade union, which is contrary to the right of workers' organizations to elect their representatives in full freedom. It therefore requests the Government once again to introduce amendments to provide for greater flexibility in relation to office-holding in trade unions by admitting as candidates persons who have previously been employed in the occupation and by exempting from occupational requirements a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organization.

The Government points out that the provision whereby a worker who is dismissed for misconduct shall not be entitled to be a member or officer of a trade union (section 3 of Act No. 22 of 1990) is desirable, since the induction of such dismissed workers into a trade union, either as members or as office-bearers, may hinder normal trade union activities as well as industrial peace and productivity. The BEA reiterates its earlier views that workers who have been dismissed for misconduct should not be able to hold trade union office, since such persons "being obsessed with retaliation would defeat the very purpose and spirit of collective bargaining". The Committee would first of all once again request the Government to supply a copy of Act No. 22 of 1990. It would further point out that, whilst it may be permissible to exclude from office-holding persons who have been convicted of criminal offences which call into question the integrity of the person concerned and which are of such a character as to be prejudicial to the exercise of trade union office (1994 General Survey, op. cit., para. 120), it considers that individuals should not be excluded from holding office simply because they have been dismissed from their employment for misconduct, and asks the Government to take steps to amend this provision accordingly.

External supervision

The Committee notes that the powers of the Registrar of Trade Unions to enter trade union premises, inspect documents, etc. under rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules 1977 are not subject to judicial review. The Committee would remind the Government that legislation which empowers the administrative authorities to investigate the internal affairs of a union at their entire discretion does not conform to the principles of the Convention (1994 General Survey, op. cit., paras. 125, 126 and 135). It therefore requests the Government to take steps to amend this provision so that the controls conducted by the Registrar are subject to review by the competent judicial authority.

The 30 per cent requirement

For some years the Committee has been asking the Government to review sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance in order to bring them into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention. The first of these provisions is to the effect that no trade union may be registered unless it has a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed. The second gives the Registrar of Trade Unions the power to cancel the registration of a union where its membership has fallen below the 30 per cent threshold.

In its report, the Government indicates that, while this minimum membership requirement has prevented the growth of a multiplicity of trade unions, it has not hindered the establishment of organizations in different workplaces. The Government has nevertheless noted the Committee's previous observations in this respect. Therefore, it has referred the relevant labour laws to a Labour Law Commission set up in 1992 for review and reformulation in the light of national conditions and international labour standards.

The Committee welcomes these developments and trusts that the above-mentioned review will bring law and practice relating to the registration of trade unions into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention under which workers have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, to join organizations of their own choosing. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this respect in the work of the Labour Law Commission.

Denial of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest from the Government's report that it has already decided to review the provisions of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act, 1980, which denies workers in export processing zones the right to form and join trade unions. The Government indicates that amendment proposals covering the extension of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and other related laws have been submitted to the competent authority. Moreover, some of the establishments in these zones have already allowed their workers to form trade unions in anticipation of the amendment of the existing law.

The Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the relevant amendments to the 1980 Act and to indicate the number of organizations that have already been set up in export processing zones as well as the size of their respective membership.

Denial of the right to organize of certain groups of workers

The Government states that workers employed by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Jute Research Institute enjoy the right to organize. The trade union of workers in the Security Printing Press is also registered, although the authorities have initiated an amendment of the relevant law to prevent undue trade union activity in the press. In any case, the Government indicates that all legislative provisions relating to the right to organize and the exclusion of establishments from the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance are being reviewed by the Labour Law Commission.

The Committee takes note of this information and recalls that the only groups of workers who may be denied the guarantees embodied in the Convention are those mentioned in Article 9 thereof - namely members of the armed forces and the police. Therefore, it trusts that the above-mentioned legislative amendments will be in conformity with the requirements of the Convention and requests the Government to provide details of these amendments once they have been elaborated by the Labour Law Commission.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

1. The Committee notes the information supplied in response to its 1989 direct request.

2. The Committee had asked the Government to provide certain information in relation to sections 11A(1) and (2) and 11B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which deny the rights to function and to collect funds of unregistered unions and the right of workers to belong to more than one trade union at a time. The Government indicates that both provisions are still in force, that they had been introduced in the greater interest of workers, and that in the Government's opinion they did not restrict the workers' right to establish and join organisations of their own choosing.

The Committee notes the Government's reply, but must reiterate that these provisions do not appear to be in conformity with the guarantees provided by Article 2 of the Convention. Accordingly, it asks the Government to introduce the necessary amendments to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention. In doing so the Committee would point out that a strict interpretation of section 11A would make it virtually impossible to establish any new trade union. This is because a union in the process of being established could not lawfully collect funds or function as a trade union until it had been registered, but it could not secure registration until it had established a secure membership base which in turn would be virtually impossible without being able to collect subscriptions and to provide at least some level of service to members or potential members.

3. The Committee had expressed a number of concerns about various aspects of those provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance which deal with strikes and other forms of industrial action. In particular: (i) the fact that only a collective bargaining agent can give notice of a lawful strike seems to deprive workers in the unorganised sector, and members of minority unions, of the right to strike (sections 28, 43 and 46(1)(b)); (ii) the fact that lawful strike notice can be served only where at least 75 per cent of the members of the relevant bargaining agent have voted in favour (section 28) constitutes an unreasonable restriction upon the right to strike; (iii) the provisions which enable the Government to prohibit strikes which have lasted for more than 30 days (section 32(2)), which entail serious hardship to the community or are prejudicial to the national interest (section 32(2)), or involve a "public utility service" (section 33(1)), appear to place restrictions on the right to strike which go beyond those which have been regarded as acceptable by the Committee (1983 General Survey, paragraphs 208-215); (iv) section 59 of the Ordinance which makes it an offence to take part in, instigate, etc. a "go-slow" does not appear to be compatible with the principles of the Convention (1983 General Survey, paragraph 218); and (v) the nature of the penalties which may be imposed in respect of participation, etc. in unlawful industrial action (sections 57, 58 and 59) do not appear to be consistent with the principles set out in paragraph 223 of the 1983 General Survey.

In response to specific queries directed to it by the Committee, the Government indicates that since 1972 only five strikes have been prohibited by virtue of section 32(2), and four by virtue of section 33(1). The Government indicates that no workers or individuals have been prosecuted under any of sections 57, 58 and 59 since 1972. The 75 per cent voting requirement is necessary to ensure that workers' demands possess the necessary degree of credibility, whilst the strike prohibitions in sections 32 and 33 are needed in order to sustain the supply of essential goods and services to the community.

The Committee has always recognised that the right to strike may be circumscribed for a limited period in times of acute national crisis. It may also be restricted in relation to public servants acting in their capacity as agents of the public authority, and in relation to services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. Such restrictions should be compensated by the existence of adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures. Statutory restrictions on the methods used, or the conditions to be satisfied in advance of lawful strike action, should not be of such a character as to result in practice in a total prohibition or an excessive limitation of the exercise of the right to strike. Penalties for engaging in strikes and other forms of industrial action should be imposed only where there are violations of strike prohibitions which are themselves in conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Furthermore, the penalties to be imposed should be proportionate to the nature of the offence committed and should not include imprisonment for the simple fact of participating in a peaceful strike.

The provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance outlined above do not appear to be compatible with these principles. Accordingly, the Committee calls upon the Government to introduce legislative amendments to bring its law and practice into full conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes the Government's reports. It also notes the observations of the Bangladesh Workers' Federation (BWF) and of the Bangladesh Employers' Association (BEA).

For a number of years the Committee has raised the following points:

- the right of association of persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions;

- the right of association of public servants;

- restrictions on the range of persons who can hold office in trade unions;

- the extent of external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions; and

- the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union.

Managerial and administrative functions

The Committee has pointed out that section 2(b)(viii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 excludes from the definitions of "worker" and "workmen" persons who are employed in a managerial or administrative capacity or who exercise functions of a managerial or administrative nature. This has the consequence that such persons are denied the right of association which is set out in section 3(a) of the Ordinance. However, both the Government and the BEA have stated that such workers are covered by the definition of "employer" in section 2(b)(viii), whose right of association is protected by section 3(b) of the Ordinance. The Committee has pointed out, as it does in paragraph 131 of its 1983 General Survey, that forbidding such persons to join unions representing other workers may not be incompatible with the requirements of the Convention so long as they have the right to form and join their own organisations to defend their interests, and that the categories of managerial staff are not so "broadly defined that the organisations of other workers in the establishment or branch of activity are weakened by being deprived of a substantial proportion of their present or potential membership".

As in its previous observations, the BEA states that "if the supervisors and the supervised are allowed to jointly form trade unions then there will be no supervision and administration".

The Committee has repeatedly asked the Government and/or the BEA to provide details as to the numbers of workers affected by these exclusions, and as to the number and size of organisations which have been formed in order to represent the interests of such workers. In its report, the Government indicates that some 3 per cent of workers in the public sector are employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but that no figures can be supplied in relation to the private sector. The Government has not provided any information in relation to the number or size of trade unions which have been established in order to represent the interests of managerial or administrative employees. In the continuing absence of any indication to the contrary, the Committee can only conclude that law and practice in Bangladesh in this regard are not in conformity with the guarantees provided by Article 2 of the Convention.

Right of association of public servants

The Committee has noted on several occasions that with certain limited exceptions, public servants are excluded from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. It is true that they are permitted to form and join associations for purposes of ventilating their grievances and promoting their interests - however, such associations are subject to certain constraints in relation to their activities which do not apply to other trade unions.

The Committee has repeatedly pointed out that these restrictions are not in conformity with the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, and has called upon the Government to introduce the changes necessary to bring the law and practice into full conformity with these provisions. In its report, the Government indicates that it has noted the observations of the Committee on this point, but it does not give any indication that it proposes to introduce the changes requested by the Committee. The Committee notes with regret this continued failure to give effect to the requirements of the Convention.

Restrictions upon the right to join or to hold office in trade unions

For a number of years the Committee has been asking the Government to amend section 7A(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance by permitting a "reasonable proportion" of the officers of a trade union to be persons who are not current or former employees in the trade or industry concerned. The Government has consistently stated that, as amended in 1985, this provision is in conformity with the Convention. The Committee remains of the view that it is not, and again asks the Government to introduce amendments to provide for greater flexibility in relation to office-holding in trade unions.

The Government indicates that section 3 of Act No. 22 of 1990 provides that a worker who is dismissed for misconduct shall not be entitled to be a member or officer of a trade union. The Government considers that this provision is desirable in the interests of healthy industrial relations. The BEA also considers that statutory provision providing for the association of dismissed workers "obsessed with retaliation will defeat the very purpose of collective bargaining". The Government has not supplied a copy of Act No. 22 of 1990. The Committee asks it to do so at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime the Committee would point out that whilst it has accepted that it may be permissible to exclude from office-holding persons who have been convicted of criminal offences which call into question the integrity of the person concerned and which are of such a character as to be prejudicial to the exercise of trade union office (1983 General Survey, paragraph 164), it considers that individuals should not be excluded from holding office simply because they have been dismissed from their employment for misconduct. A fortiori, the Committee considers that individuals should not be excluded from union membership simply because they have been dismissed for misconduct.

External supervision

The Committee had asked the Government to indicate whether the powers of the Registrar of Trade Unions to enter trade union premises, inspect documents, etc. under rule 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules 1977 is subject to judicial review. The Government has indicated that the powers of the Registrar under section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance are subject to judicial review by virtue of section 10(3), but it has not provided any reply in relation to the 1977 rules. It is asked to provide such a response in its next report.

The 30 per cent requirement

For some years the Committee has been asking the Government to review sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance in order to bring them into conformity with Article 2 of the Convention. The first of these provisions is to the effect that no trade union may be registered unless it has a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed. The second gives the Registrar of Trade Unions the power to cancel the registration of a union where its membership has fallen below the 30 per cent threshold.

In its report, the Government indicates that these provisions have achieved their purpose of preventing the growth of a multiplicity of trade unions, and that section 7(2) is used by the unions themselves to keep the number of unions in each establishment or group of establishments to a maximum of three. The Government further indicates that section 7(2) has been amended so as to facilitate the grouping of establishments controlled by the same employer. It has not provided the text, or the date, of this amendment.

The Committee has consistently taken the view that where the law prescribes a minimum number of members for purposes of establishing a trade union that number "ought to be limited to a reasonable figure so that the establishment of organisations is not hindered" (1983 General Survey, paragraph 123). It has also taken the view that a 30 per cent figure is excessive for these purposes (ibid., paragraph 124). Accordingly, the Committee must again call upon the Government to introduce amendments to bring its law and practice relating to the registration of trade unions into conformity with what the Committee has always regarded as one of the most important principles enshrined in the Convention (ibid., paragraph 120). It also asks the Government to supply the text of the recent amendments to section 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.

Denial of the right to organise of workers in export processing zones

In its comments, the BWF states that section 11A of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act, 1980, denies workers in export processing zones the right to form and join trade unions. The Government confirms that this provision does indeed enable it to exempt a zone from the operation of all or part of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. It goes on to explain that employers in such zones are found to be paying wages and other benefits which are above the national average, and that accordingly "the Government does not consider it expedient to allow formation of trade unions for the time being". The Committee considers that this provision is not compatible with the guarantees provided by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and, in particular, with the right of all workers without distinction whatsoever to establish and join organisations of their own choosing, and it urges the Government to amend section 11A of the 1980 Act so as to bring it into conformity with the requirements of the Convention.

Denial of the right to organise of certain groups of workers

The BWF states that the Government has introduced legislation to prevent the establishment of trade unions by employees of the Rural Electrification Board, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Jute Research Institute. It also alleges that the Government had "decided to outlaw" the Bangladesh Bank Security Printing Press Workers and Employees Union.

The Government has not commented on the allegations relating to the Rural Electrification Board, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Jute Research Institute. It does confirm, however, that the Industrial Relations Ordinance was amended in 1990 so as to exclude from its operation any person employed by the Security Printing Press. This press is owned by the Government, and is responsible for printing bank notes and minting currency. In view of its importance to national security it was considered necessary to place the press outside the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Once this had been done it followed that the registration of the Bangladesh Bank Security Printing Press Workers and Employees Union had to be cancelled.

The Committee must point out that the only groups of workers who may be denied the guarantees embodied in the Convention are those mentioned in Article 9 thereof - namely members of the armed forces and the police. The employees of the Security Printing Press do not fall into either of these categories. Accordingly, the Committee must call upon the Government to restore to workers employed by the Security Printing Press the rights guaranteed by the Convention. It also asks the Government to indicate whether it is true that workers employed by the Rural Electrification Board, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Jute Research Institute have been denied the right to form or join the unions of their choice.

The Committee asks the Government to reconsider the situation as a whole in the light of the above comments and to report any measures that are taken in order to bring its law and practice into conformity with the Convention.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 78th Session.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee takes note of the report of the Government. It also takes note of the observations made by the Bangladesh Employers' Association.

The Committee recalls that for a number of years it has expressed concerns relating to:

- the right of association of persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions;

- the right of association of public servants;

- restrictions upon the range of persons who can hold office in trade unions;

- the extent of external supervision of the internal affairs of trade unions; and

- the "30 per cent" requirement for initial or continued registration as a trade union.

Managerial and administrative functions

The Comittee has pointed out that section 2(b)(viii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, as amended, excludes from the definition of "worker" and "workmen" persons who are employed in a managerial or administrative capacity or who exercise functions of a managerial or administrative nature. This has the consequence that such persons are denied the right of association which is set out in section 3(a) of the Ordinance. In the past the Committee has noted statements by the Government and by the Bangladesh Employers' Association to the effect that such staff are covered by the definition of "employer" in section 2(b)(viii), whose right of association is provided for by section 3(b) of the same Ordinance. The Committee has pointed out, as it does in paragraph 131 of its General Survey of 1983, that forbidding such persons to join trade unions representing other workers is not necessarily incompatible with freedom of association, on two conditions: first, that they have the right to form their own organisations to defend their interests and, second, that the categories of managerial staff and employees in positions of confidence are not so broadly defined that the organisations of other workers in the establishment or branch of activity are weakened by being deprived of a substantial proportion of their present or potential membership. According to the Bangladesh Employers' Association, there would be no management or administration if these groups of staff were authorised to set up trade unions with the workers under their orders. The Committee has noted that these groups of persons are entitled to set up their own associations for the defence of their interests. Bearing these considerations in mind, the Committee has repeatedly asked the Government and/or the Bangladesh Employers' Association to provide details as to the number or percentage of workers affected by these provisions. In its most recent observation, the Employers' Association states that the number is "small". The Government states that the required information is not readily available.

The Committee again asks the Government to try to provide some estimate of the percentage of the workforce who are regarded as being employed in a managerial or administrative capacity. It also asks the Government to provide information as to the number, and size of membership, of organisations which have been formed in order to represent the interests of such staff.

Right of association of public servants

The Committee recalls that public servants, apart from those employed on the railways, and in postal, telegraph and telephone services, are excluded from the scope of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. They are permitted to form and to join associations for purposes of ventilating their grievances and promoting their interests. However, such associations are subject to a number of constraints which do not apply to trade unions which operate within the framework of the 1969 Ordinance. For example, section 29(c) and (e) of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979, forbids associations from engaging in any form of political activity, whilst section 29(d) denies them the right to issue or maintain any publications other than in accordance with Government orders, or to publish any representation on behalf of their members except with the express sanction of the Government.

The Committee has repeatedly pointed out that such restrictions are not in conformity with the requirements of the Convention. It again urges the Government to reconsider the situation, in order to give full effect to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention with respect to public servants.

Restrictions upon the right to join or to hold office in trade unions

As a result of amendments in 1970 and in 1980, section 7A(1)(a)(ii) and (b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, limited the right to be a member or officer of a trade union to persons actually employed in the establishment or group of establishments where the union was formed. The Committee has consistently taken the view that a provision of this kind restricts the right of workers to establish and to join organisations of their own choosing (Article 2 of the Convention), to elect their representatives in full freedom and to organise their administration and activities (Article 3) (see the Committee's General Survey of 1983, paragraphs 157 and 158). Section 7A was amended in 1985 so as to remove the prohibition formerly contained in section 7A(1)(b). The Committee has observed that this change reflected the fact that this provision had ceased to be necessary by reason of the effluxion of time. The stipulation formerly embodied in section 7A(1)(a)(ii) is now found in a new section 7A(1)(b), but with the important qualification that former employees at an establishment or group of establishments can now be members or officers of a trade union formed at that establishment. Both the Government and the Bangladesh Employers' Association are of the opinion that section 7A(1) is now consistent with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee notes the amendment, and the views of the Government and of the Employers' Association, with interest. However, it requests the Government to adopt measures with a view to making these provisions more flexible by exempting from the occupational requirement a reasonable proportion of the officers of an organisation so as to allow the candidature of persons who are outside the profession. (General Survey, paragraph 158.)

External supervision

The Committee has noted on a number of occasions that section 10 of the Industrial Relations Rules, 1977, invests the Registrar with very wide-ranging powers as regards access to, and inspection of, the accounting and other records of trade unions. In a 1987 observation, the Bangladesh Free Trade Union Congress also drew attention to the broad scope of these powers, and to the fact that officials of the Federation (and other unions) are summoned to the office of the Authorised Officer (Registrar) immediately on receipt of their annual returns.

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that in practice the supervision exercised by the Registrar is limited to the inspection of account books and calling for any necessary clarification. The Government further states that no investigatory measure has so far been taken by the Registrar against any trade union or federation, and that the summoning of officials of the Bangladesh Free Trade Union Congress was entirely consistent with both the legislation and the Convention. The Government also points out that the powers of the Registrar in relation to the deregistration of trade unions (for example because of financial irregularities) is subject to judicial review by virtue of section 10(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, as amended in 1985. However, the Committee notes that there does not appear to be any express provision for judicial review of the exercise of the Registrar's powers under section 10(g) of the Industrial Relations Rules 1977. The Committee asks the Government to inform it whether or not this is indeed the case.

The Committee also notes the views of the Bangladesh Employers' Association to the effect that union officers hold the funds of the union on trust for the members, and that accordingly it is appropriate that the law should seek to protect the interests of those members. The Committee refers again to paragraph 188 of its General Survey of 1983, where it points out that investing an administrative authority (such as the Registrar) with broad discretionary powers to examine the papers of an organisation creates a grave danger of interference with the guarantees provided by the Convention. Accordingly it requests the Government to keep it informed of any practical problems which may arise from the continued operation of these provisions - especially in the form of complaints by registered unions of undue interference on the part of the Registrar.

The 30 per cent requirement

The Committee again notes that section 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, provides that no trade union may be registered under the Ordinance unless it has a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed. It also notes that section 10(1)(g) of the Ordinance gives the Registrar the power to cancel the registration of a trade union where its membership has fallen short of 30 per cent of the workers at the establishment(s) concerned. Decisions under both of these provisions are subject to judicial review.

In its report, the Government reiterates its opinion that the purpose of sections 7(2) and 10(1)(g) is to help the unions to maintain their numbers and ensure social peace by avoiding a multiplicity of small competing unions. The Government also points out that no group of workers, union or federation, has ever raised any doubt about the efficacy of these provisions.

The Committee has taken the view that provisions like section 10(1)(g) which grant an administrative authority discretionary powers over the existence of a trade union, are equivalent to a restriction on the right of workers to establish and to join organisations of their own choosing without prior authorisation, as envisaged by Article 2 of the Convention (see General Survey, 1983, paragraphs 104-119). It is obviously appropriate that there be a right of apppeal against decisions of the Registrar under sections 7 and 10 of the Ordinance. However, the Committee points out that the existence of such a right of appeal does not of itself constitute a sufficient protection of the rights guaranteed by the Convention since it does not alter the nature of the powers conferred upon the Registrar in the first place (see General Survey, 1983, paragraph 117).

The Committee considers that, where the legislation lays down a criterion of a minimum number of members, this number should be a reasonable one. The figure of 30 per cent, applied generally both to small and to large establishments, is excessive in the opinion of the Committee, which considers that it may be an obstacle to the establishment of organisations (see General Survey, 1983, paragraphs 123-124).

The Committee urges once again the Government to reconsider the situation as a whole in the light of the above comments and to report any measure that is taken in order to give effect to the Convention. [The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 76th Session.]