Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2006, Publication: 95th ILC session (2006)

A Government representative stated that the fundamental rights of freedom of association of workers were guaranteed under the Constitution, national laws and regulations, and that these were in conformity with his country's international obligations. Any aggrieved party could have recourse to the judicial system. With respect to trade union rights and the export processing zones (EPZs), he stated that EPZs were designed to attract foreign direct investment needed for rapid economic growth and increase in employment. After considerable initial successes, it was felt that the relationship between the workers and employers in this area had to be brought into conformity with the general laws, and the EPZ Workers' Association and Industrial Relations Act of 2004 fulfilled this need. The requirement that 30 per cent of the workers had to express a desire to form a workers' association and that, in the ensuing referendum, there should be a participation of at least 50 per cent and over 50 per cent of the voters should be in favour of establishing the association, were procedural issues which also provided guidance in the formation of the association for the first time in an industrial unit. He understood that the Committee of Experts had not raised any questions on the rest of the procedures provided for in the Act and added that the Act was balanced since the same percentages would apply, mutatis mutandis, if the association were to be deregistered. He further stated that as of 1 November 2006, full association rights would be available in the EPZs and that the statistical information requested by the Committee of Experts would become available. With respect to the comments by the Committee of Experts that there was a lack of legislative protection against acts of interference, the speaker agreed that there should not be any interference and that measures had to be taken if any interference was found in practice. With respect to which action constituted "interference", this was clearly spelled out in section 41 of Chapter IV of the EPZ Act.

With respect to collective bargaining and the requirement that the registration of a trade union needed 30 per cent support of the workers in the establishment, the speaker was of the view that that this did not contravene the provisions of Convention No. 98. He clarified that the objective of this requirement was to ensure broader representation of the workers in a union and to avoid mushrooming of trade unions, thereby helping to maintain unity of the workers in the establishment. The provisions in the EPZ Act were exactly in line with the provisions applicable to the rest of the country, to which neither workers nor employers had opposed. When the Committee of Experts raised the issue of 30 per cent, the basic question was whether this actually hampered the ability of the workers in the exercise of their rights. There had been so few instances of this nature that there had not been any demand for change. With respect to the Committee of Experts' comments on the practice of determining wage rates and other employment conditions in the public sector, the speaker indicated that he was not quite clear about the comments. He referred to the procedure of tripartite wage commissions with the government playing a key balancing role. From the Committee of Experts' comments, it appeared that the suggestion was to do away with the wage commissions and to let market forces work in an unfettered manner. He asked if this was the true implication of the comments. Given the imperfections in the market, and the asymmetry of information, the weaker group (i.e. the workers) might lose. With respect to the draft Labour Code, he indicated that the process was taking much longer than expected and that he was not in a position to predict the outcome of the discussions. All groups in the country had the draft and were commenting on it to ensure that the Code, once approved, had the full endorsement of all stakeholders.

The Worker members stated that the problems of application identified by the Committee of Experts were of different natures. First of all, regarding restrictions of freedom of association in export processing zones, the Government should eliminate required percentages and imposed procedures that made the establishment of trade unions difficult. At the same time, measures should be taken with respect to the lack of legal protection from interference, including adequate penalties; the required percentage related to collective bargaining should be lowered; the practice of determining wages and other employment conditions in the public sector through tripartite wage commissions appointed by the Government should be modified; and the drafting of the new Labour Code should be finalized. The Committee of Experts had most probably highlighted this case with a footnote because all of the comments, with a few exceptions, had been the same for the last ten years. This case concerned a continued failure to apply the Convention. However, Bangladesh was also on this list of individual cases due to recent serious developments that unfortunately illustrated the results of inadequate collective negotiations - that is to say social chaos, the death of several victims and scores injured, as well as important material damages. The facts spoke for themselves and should prompt the Government to radically and rapidly change its course.

The Employer members had expected more from the Government's statement than what they had received today. They recalled that the phenomenon of acts of interference in freedom of association went beyond the issue of EPZs. The Committee had been discussing matters related to the 1969 Industrial Relations Ordinance since 1987. Nothing regarding this law was heard from the Government today. Referring to the question of the determination of wage rates and conditions of work in the public sector, the Employer members emphasized that in its report the Committee of Experts had required the Government to enable the development of a voluntary collective bargaining system rather than imposing a pre-determined system. In their opinion, the heart of the matter was whether the Government would implement Article 4 of Convention No. 98. With regard to the draft Labour Code to which the Government representative repeatedly referred, the Employer members acknowledged its importance, given that in theory it could resolve all outstanding matters, but regretted not having received concrete and substantive information. Without intending to minimize the importance of the issues rooted in the 30 and 50 per cent voting requirements, they noted that Convention No. 98 did not define in concrete terms the level of trade union membership required for establishment. This notwithstanding, the Government had to revise its legal requirements to ensure the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining. In concluding, the Employer members indicated that they wanted the Government to provide a more complete picture of the labour reform under way in Bangladesh, especially given the long history of the issues at hand.

The Government member of Malaysia thanked the Government representative for the information he provided and urged the Committee to take into account what he considered to be a demonstrated commitment by the Government to preserve and protect labour rights. He trusted that the Government had assumed its responsibility in reforming the labour legislation in line with the observations of the Committee of Experts and invited the latter to assist the Government in its efforts, in particular in its effort to promote social dialogue.

The Government member of China urged the Committee to appreciate the efforts made by the Government of Bangladesh to implement policies and programmes for the protection of labour rights and the welfare of the people. In his view, the Government fully respected international labour standards and was committed to their gradual implementation. The speaker also endorsed the practice followed by the Government of Bangladesh as regarded the application of ILO principles on the right to organize and bargain collectively in EPZs and invited the Governing Body to recognize the progress made. In closing, he expressed the hope that the Committee of Experts would make greater efforts to cooperate with the Government and allow for greater latitude in the design and implementation of its social policy.

The Government member of Sri Lanka welcomed the efforts made by the Government of Bangladesh to work closely with the ILO for the preservation and protection of labour rights. He expressed his confidence in the Government's commitment to honour its obligations under ILO Conventions and noted that Bangladesh was in the final stages of the adoption of its new Labour Code. He reiterated the request of the Non-Aligned Movement countries regarding the working methods of the Conference Committee to the effect that the selection of the individual cases should be made in a fully transparent and predictable manner according to the criterion of balanced geographical distribution.

The Government member of Uzbekistan stated that Bangladesh had made continued efforts to apply ILO standards. A legal basis had been created to defend freedom of association and to introduce collective bargaining. With respect to workers' rights in EPZs, which had been created to attract foreign investment and employing more than 150,000 workers, the Government had given priority to the respect of a fair wage structure and the preservation of workers' interests. Finally, the country had made certain progress in the application of the Convention which deserved to be supported, as did the continuous dialogue between the ILO, the social partners and the Government of Bangladesh in the search for a mutually acceptable solution.

The Government member of Myanmar also expressed his support for the policies and programmes of Bangladesh that protected and promoted labour rights and the welfare of the workforce. In his view, the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 did not contravene the provisions of Convention No. 98, but rather offered workers and employers sufficient protection regarding their right to organise and bargain collectively. He trusted that through the gradual implementation of ILO standards the Government would attain the desired objectives and urged it to continue its cooperation with the International Labour Office.

The Government member of Belarus thanked the Government representative for providing concrete information. Notwithstanding the particularities of EPZs, Bangladesh ensured through its legislation the rights of workers in these zones and implemented policies promoting socio-economic development. The country was currently in the process of drafting a new Labour Code, in the preparation of which the Government was prepared to take into account a number of constructive recommendations by the Committee of Experts, an undertaking in which the social partners should also participate. Given the volume and complexity of this work, the Government should not be pressured to finish in haste or to set strict deadlines for the adoption of the Code. The speaker also stated that his Government fully supported the position of Bangladesh on the question of minimum trade union membership, which favoured the formation of strong and independent trade unions and promoted dialogue between government and workers. He added that this issue had not been studied sufficiently in depth and that the Office should conduct, for the benefit of member States, a comparative study on the relation between trade union membership and trade union effectiveness in terms of the results achieved. The Government of Belarus requested this proposal to be duly reflected in the conclusions of the specific case as well as in the Committee's General Report. In concluding, the speaker declared his Government's commitment to social dialogue and to achieving progress through cooperation. It was necessary to re-examine the Committee of Experts' recommendations, taking fully into account the information provided by the Government representative.

The Government member of Pakistan welcomed the statement delivered by the Government representative and urged the Committee to give due consideration in its conclusions to the steps taken in order to implement the Convention. Bangladesh had taken commendable steps over the years to overcome the immense economic and social challenges it faced. As a result of these efforts, Bangladesh had turned into a major textile exporter providing jobs to thousands of workers, the majority of whom were women. In closing, the speaker expressed the hope that Bangladesh would soon be able to discharge its legal obligations with regard to collective bargaining as envisaged in Convention No. 98.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that his delegation had noted the success story of the EPZs in Bangladesh, and how these zones had contributed to the economic development and employment generation in a country that had been adversely affected by globalization. He hoped that the Committee would recognize that developing countries needed some policy space in the early stages of development. He also hoped that the ILO would provide technical assistance for the settlement of the issues at hand.

An observer representing the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF), speaking with the authorization of the Officers of the Committee, stated that he had just flown in from Bangladesh and that the textile sector there had been in chaos for the past two weeks. Hundreds of thousands of workers were in revolt against wage levels fixed back in 1994, arbitrarily fixed piecework rates, and working hours which ranged from 14 to 16 hours a day. A number of workers had been killed, hundreds injured, and many arrested, and over 250 factories had been attacked, of which some were totally destroyed. Over 70,000 workers in EPZs were locked out. This situation was the result of the inability of workers to exercise their right to freedom of association and collective bargaining. There was no collective bargaining in the 4,600 factories in the garment sector, and only a handful of recognized trade unions. The 30 per cent threshold required to form a trade union effectively prevented trade unions from getting off the ground, and when they did they were promptly attacked. The ready-made garment industry was effectively a trade-union free zone. There was also widespread interference in trade unions. Companies often nominated worker representatives in workers' committees in factories. The worker representative on the wage commission established to deal with the current crisis had also been nominated by employers, but this nomination had been withdrawn in the face of uproar.

The speaker stated that prior to 1994, workers could form trade unions, albeit with no legal protection. With the enactment of the EPZ Workers Association and Industrial Relations Act, 2004, trade unions were now forbidden in EPZs and had been replaced by workers' welfare committees, which were forbidden to have contacts with trade unions or raise workers' issues. As of 1 November 2006, workers' associations would be allowed, but they would still be forbidden to have links to trade unions. The recent events should serve as a wake up call to the Government. The speaker was of the view that it would be difficult to change overnight from a climate hostile to trade unions to one characterized by mature industrial relations. For this reason, ILO assistance was urgently needed. He called on the Government to take responsibility for labour matters in the EPZs, to adopt and implement a new Labour Code providing for full protection of freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively, to abolish separate legislation concerning EPZs, and to strengthen labour law and its enforcement.

The Government representative stated that he would transmit to his authorities the comments of the Worker and Employer members. Regarding the Employer members' comment that there were no trade union rights in Bangladesh, he pointed out that the 2004 EPZ Workers Association and Industrial Relations Act provided for freedom of association in EPZs. With regard to the new Labour Code, he indicated that the draft had been submitted by the National Labour Law Commission to the Tripartite Review Committee with a view to updating it with comments from all stakeholders. He expected to receive a final draft shortly. In response to the concerns raised by the representative of the ITGLWF, he assured that the situation in his country had considerably calmed down. Regarding low wages and other conditions of employment in the public sector, the speaker maintained that these were based on recommendations of the tripartite Industrial Workers' Wages Commission. Finally, with respect to the question of voluntary bargaining in the public and private sector, his Government was of the view that the current legislation was designed to provide a fair and equitable wage structure for the public sector and to safeguard workers in less viable industries. Wages were determined by a tripartite wage commission. Furthermore, as a result of the Government's privatization process, wages in the sector were being increasingly set through free and voluntary collective bargaining. In conclusion, he stressed his Government's commitment to uphold workers' rights and constructively cooperate with the Committee.

The Employer members stated that the words "making efforts" and "progress" usually referred to something tangible. Yet, in the present discussion "efforts" and "progress" were empty words. During the Cold War, a chorus of governments had made statements similar to those of today. Today, the chorus claimed that Bangladesh was making efforts or that there had been progress. Yet, there was clearly none, especially in comparison to the cases before this Committee where efforts and progress usually referred to something concrete. If the empty criteria of efforts and progress used by the chorus of governments in support of Bangladesh were to be applied to other cases, no government would ever be considered out of compliance with ILO standards. The Employer members stressed that the process before the present Committee had to be a meaningful one. It was unacceptable to simply assert that there was progress; this had to be demonstrated. The case dealt with serious violations of a fundamental Convention and the conclusions of the Committee should reflect this reality.

The Worker members concurred with the Employer members with respect to the great seriousness of the case. The lack of adequate mechanisms for collective bargaining had led the country into a dead-end and the lack of political will was the root cause of the explosive social situation. And yet, the Government representative assured that he was unaware of any criticism voiced by workers in the export processing zones. Those who believed in the miracle of these zones, without unions and bargaining, would come to understand that this was but a mirage about to evaporate. Faced with this urgency, the ILO should take action, together with the social partners and the Government, to find a lasting solution permitting a way out of the impasse and to respond correctly to the observations of the Committee of Experts. The Worker members asked that this case be placed in a special paragraph of the Committee's report due to the continued failure to apply the Convention and the worrying current situation.

The Government representative regretted that the conclusions adopted by the Committee did not adequately reflect the responses and replies given by his Government and, as such, did not take due account of the elements covered by the discussion of the case.

The Chairperson indicated that the form of the conclusions and the procedure followed were in accordance with the usual practice of the Committee, as explained during the information session organized by the secretariat the previous week. The debate on the conclusions to the case had been closed and any further questions could only be raised when the Committee's report was considered in plenary.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative and the debate that followed.

The Committee observed that the pending issues referred to: restrictions to the right to organize and bargain collectively in export processing zones; the absence of legal protection against acts of interference in organizations; excessive representativity requirements provided for in the law regarding the exercise of the right to bargain collectively; and the determination of wage rates and other employment conditions in the public sector by tripartite pay committees appointed by the Government, rather than letting the parties concerned bargain freely on these issues.

The Committee noted the Government's explanations in respect of the Export Processing Zones Act and its statement that the process of framing the draft Labour Code was taking longer than expected.

The Committee expressed its deep concern that the Government was not in a position to provide information on concrete steps or progress made in respect of the matters raised by the Committee of Experts. It underlined the necessity of settling without delay the persistent problems raised concerning the application of the Convention, and the importance of providing appropriate protection against acts of interference and of guaranteeing the exercise of free and voluntary collective bargaining in the public and private sectors, without legal impediments. The Committee emphasized in particular the serious difficulties that prevailed as regarded the exercise of workers' rights in export processing zones, and urged the Government to take measures to eliminate the remaining obstacles in law and in practice. The Committee trusted that the necessary measures would be taken in the very near future in full consultation with the social partners concerned and that the authorities would soon adopt a Labour Code that guaranteed the full application of the Convention in law and in practice. The Committee urged the Government to make all efforts in this regard and requested it to provide the Committee of Experts with a complete report on all the measures taken in this respect and its observations on the statements concerning severe social unrest raised in the Committee. It urged the Government to request the technical assistance of the Office in order to resolve these grave problems and to put in place durable solutions.

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

The Government representative regretted that the conclusions adopted by the Committee did not adequately reflect the responses and replies given by his Government and, as such, did not take due account of the elements covered by the discussion of the case.

The Chairperson indicated that the form of the conclusions and the procedure followed were in accordance with the usual practice of the Committee, as explained during the information session organized by the secretariat the previous week. The debate on the conclusions to the case had been closed and any further questions could only be raised when the Committee's report was considered in plenary.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2004, Publication: 92nd ILC session (2004)

A Government representative stressed his Government's total commitment to the protection of labour rights in the country. Bangladesh had ratified 33 ILO Conventions, including seven of the eight core Conventions. He pointed out that the right to organize and collective bargaining of workers and employers in Bangladesh was safeguarded under the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969. The rights accorded to the workers and employers under this Ordinance related to protection against unfair labour practices on the part of employers and workers (sections 15 and 16), and conditions of service to remain unchanged while an application for registration was pending. The IRO also prohibited the transfer of the president and general secretary of a trade union. At the same time, a worker refusing to participate in any illegal strike was accorded protection under the provisions of the IRO. Any contravention of these provisions of the IRO was punishable under the Ordinance.

Secondly, the IRO required that, for the registration of a trade union in any establishment, it should have the support and membership of at least 30 per cent of the workers employed in that particular establishment. This requirement for registration of a trade union did not contravene the intent of the provisions of Convention No. 98, nor did it infringe upon the rights of workers to form trade unions. The objective of this position was to ensure broader and more representative workers' bodies and to maintain the unity of the workers in the establishment. He underscored that none of the social partners in the country opposed these provisions in the IRO. Similarly, with regard to recognition of a trade union as the collective bargaining agent (CBA), the present IRO required the trade union to have the support of 30 per cent of the total workforce in that establishment. In order to develop sound industrial relations, the CBA was determined in the most democratic manner - through elections. This promoted effective representation of the workers and protected the rights of workers in the establishment. Neither the workers nor the employers within the country had raised any issue regarding this provision.

Regarding the question of trade union rights of workers in the export processing zones (EPZs), some recent developments were worth mentioning. The EPZs had been an astounding success story in Bangladesh. They had contributed significantly towards the country's economic development in terms of foreign direct investment, exports and employment generation. The EPZs alone contributed to 19 per cent of the country's total exports and employed about 130,000 workers. Clearly the EPZs made a significant contribution to reducing poverty in Bangladesh. Moreover, studies undertaken by international firms such as the Société Générale de Surveillance (SGS), Gherzi and others showed that workers in these EPZs enjoyed better working conditions, in terms of health and hygiene, and safety and security as well as financial benefits, compared to those working in the comparable industries outside the EPZs. Recently the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) had taken a number of reform measures. These reforms provided for representation in the Workers' Welfare Committee (WWC) in the EPZ through elections. The WWC was the workers' representative body in the EPZ. Earlier, representation to the WWC was based on selection. The instructions also provided legal protection to the members of the WWCs in the event of any disciplinary action taken by employers in EPZs. With the reform of the instructions, workers' representatives in the EPZ could now discuss with the management matters related to job security, wages and other financial packages.

Additionally, the renowned firm SGS had concluded its auditing of the employment conditions, wage structure of EPZ workers and grievance-handling mechanisms followed in EPZs. The firm also reviewed the BEPZA instructions and performance of workers' welfare committees. The findings of SGS, the independent audit firm, suggested that BEPZA instructions were much more effective in addressing workers' benefits, employment conditions and wages issues. The report also concluded that 65 per cent of the surveyed workers did not consider traditional trade unions of Bangladesh to be an effective means of addressing workers' issues in the EPZs. The overall assessment of the training programme was favourable and the report also stressed the need for additional training in order to strengthen WWCs for a sound industrial relations environment within the EPZs. The Government representative concluded by emphasizing that the ILO was a unique international organization due to its tripartite structure. This was the strength and spirit of the ILO and should be fully respected in all its activities.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for the information that he had provided. The last time that the case of Bangladesh had been discussed was in 1994. In its observation, the Committee of Experts noted violations of Convention No. 98 in the four following respects: (1) the protection of workers' and employers' organizations against acts of interference by each other; (2) trade union rights in EPZs; (3) obstacles to free and voluntary collective bargaining in the private sector; and (4) the restriction on free and voluntary collective bargaining in the public sector, particularly in view of the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions.

With regard to acts of interference, the Committee of Experts indicated in its observation that this practice violated Article 2 of the Convention, which prohibited acts of interference by organizations of workers and employers in each other's affairs. The Worker members supported the comments of the Committee of Experts when it requested the Government to adopt specific measures, combined with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to prevent acts of interference. With respect to union rights in the EPZs, the Government indicated that it had adopted a declaration allowing workers in these zones the right of association and other facilities as of 1 January 2004. The Government should immediately provide this declaration so that the Committee of Experts could examine it. It would also be desirable to know whether the declaration was applied in practice and, if it was not, an explanation as to the reasons why. The interference in free and voluntary collective bargaining in the private sector and the restriction on free and voluntary collective bargaining in the public sector were problems which the Conference Committee had been discussing for several years. In the past, the Committee of Experts had requested the Government to lower the required threshold for union registration and to modify section 22 of its 1969 Ordinance so that it conformed with the provisions of the Convention. With respect to free and voluntary collective bargaining in the public sector, the Government interfered in the negotiation of wages, in particular through the tripartite wages commissions which it appointed. This situation was unacceptable. Moreover, the Committee of Experts noted that the Government had not submitted information on its current revision of the Labour Code.

In 1994, the Conference Committee had discussed a number of points raised by the Committee of Experts, with the exception of those relating to EPZs. The Government representative at that time had concluded the discussion by saying that he hoped that the following year he would be in a position to inform the Committee that all the problems mentioned in the observations of the Committee of Experts had been resolved. Yet, ten years later, the only progress that could be noted was the adoption of the declaration on the right of association in EPZs. Furthermore, it had to be verified whether it was in conformity with Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention. Moreover, since 1994, acts of interference and obstruction to free and voluntary collective bargaining in the private and public sectors had not been addressed. For more than ten years, the problems had been the same. The Committee of Experts had been making the same comments and the Government the same remarks. In this regard, it was difficult to believe in the good faith of the Government or its ability to put into practice the requirements of the Convention.

The Employer members indicated that the present case concerned a number of critical points in law and practice and had previously been discussed by the Committee in 1994, and before then in 1987. Perhaps the Committee had let too much time pass before returning to the case. With regard to the first point raised by the Committee of Experts, namely the insufficient protection for workers' and employers' organizations against acts of interference by each other, they noted that there had been no new information and that the Committee of Experts had therefore requested the Government to adopt the necessary measures. They added that the rules in this respect were very clear.

On the subject of trade union rights in EPZs, the Employer members noted that the Government had referred to a declaration adopted in 2001, but had failed to provide the text of the declaration, which meant that the Committee could have no notion of its significance. The Government was therefore urged to provide a copy of the declaration. The Government representative had emphasized the importance of EPZs in the development of Bangladesh and other countries. In this respect, the Employer members noted that the situation was no longer the same as when EPZs had first emerged. The Government representative had acknowledged that workers in EPZs had had little social protection, but that changes were now occurring. The Employer members indicated that it made sense to achieve progress in this respect and that the Government's commitments needed to be fulfilled. However, more detailed information was required on the situation. Turning to the issue of the 30 per cent requirement for the registration of a trade union, which was necessary for its participation in negotiations at the enterprise level, they recalled that, although the Committee of Experts considered this requirement to be too high, no specific threshold was set in this regard in the Convention. They indicated that the Convention was mute as to whether trade unions representing a lower number of workers could play an effective role, and it was therefore necessary to make a distinction between legal requirements and practice.

They observed that the Committee of Experts had also raised the issue of the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions. The Committee of Experts had indicated that free and voluntary collective bargaining should be conducted between the directly interested workers' organization and an employer or an employers' organization, which should be able to appoint freely their negotiating representatives. The Government representative had been silent on this point, although he had provided some information on the working methods of the tripartite wages commissions. A number of speakers had also indicated that the provisions of international labour standards might not be so directly applicable in developing countries. In the view of the Employer members, these were issues which needed to be taken into account at the stages of the preparation and ratification of standards. The drafting process for international instruments should ensure that they were universally applicable, although this would only be achieved if developing countries played a more prominent role in the drafting process. In conclusion, the Employer members indicated that the Conference Committee had perhaps neglected this case for too long. They called upon the Government to review in full the current situation, paying particular attention to all the points raised by the Committee of Experts, which should be covered in depth in a report, to which copies of all the relevant legal provisions should be attached.

The Worker member of Bangladesh indicated that, concerning point 1 of the observation of the Committee of Experts regarding protection of workers' and employers' organizations against acts of interference by each other, on point 4 regarding the wage determination mechanism and on point 5 regarding the updating of the draft Labour Code, he supported the observations and action already taken by this Committee. On point 2 regarding the right to organize and bargain collectively in EPZs, the situation was not very clear. He had heard that draft legislation had been approved by the Cabinet for immediate enactment by Parliament thereby providing a solution to the problem. He emphasized that, if possible, consultations should take place prior to the adoption of such legislation. The workers' organizations had not been consulted about the proposed provisions. In addition, there already existed appropriate legislation - the IRO - in this regard. In order to restore collective bargaining rights to EPZ workers, all that was required was the repeal of the ban arbitrarily imposed to restrict application of the IRO to EPZs. Even if the enactment of new legislation complied with the provisions of Convention No. 98, the question of freedom of association and the right to organize in trade unions remained unresolved. He suggested that the Committee examine the text of the proposed law and recommend to the Government to proceed in a tripartite manner. On point 3 regarding the 30 per cent requirement for registration of a trade union and the requirement to have one-third of the workers as members in order to be able to negotiate at enterprise level, he requested that the Committee review its previous decision of asking the Government to lower the percentage. He pointed out that, in view of the national socio-economic context, maintaining the status quo in this regard would better serve the interests of all parties, including the workers.

The Government member of Sri Lanka welcomed the efforts taken by the Government of Bangladesh to cooperate with the ILO in the preservation and protection of labour rights in that country. He was confident of Bangladesh's commitment to its obligations under the various ILO Conventions which it had ratified. Moreover, the Government of Bangladesh had initiated the process to formulate a new legal framework to accord trade union rights to workers in the EPZs. He encouraged the Government of Bangladesh and the ILO to continue to work together to resolve all outstanding issues.

The Worker member of India expressed concern that, although the Government had ratified Convention No. 98 in 1972, it had not been implemented in law or practice. There was in fact general non-implementation of this Convention, particularly in the EPZs. In Bangladesh, whenever workers tried to form or join a union, they were dismissed for a variety of reasons or were treated in a manner that compelled them to quit. Moreover, the workers were not entitled to any social security benefits since there was no such social security in Bangladesh. Workers often received less than US$1 per day for 12 hours of work. Contractors and subcontractors employed these workers and treated them inhumanely taking advantage of their poverty and job insecurity. There were also instances where women workers were burnt to death when fires broke out in their EPZ garment factories that were locked from the outside. No inquiries, however, were conducted nor was compensation paid to the survivors. While there should be a climate for encouraging trade unions, in order to be registered, a union must have a membership of at least 30 per cent of the total number of workers in the establishment or group of establishments in which it was formed. This discouraged unionization to the satisfaction of both national and multinational enterprises. In contrast, in India, the Trade Union Act required 10 per cent of the workforce or 100 workers for union registration. However, in Bangladesh, foreign-funded NGOs had overpowered the trade unions. In conclusion, the Worker member requested that the ILO ensure that the workers of Bangladesh enjoyed the rights enshrined in Convention No. 98.

The Government member of Indonesia welcomed the sincere efforts being made by the Government of Bangladesh to establish a legal framework which accorded trade union rights to workers in EPZs. He also felt that the IRO, 1969, which did not meet with the approval of workers and employers in the country, did not contravene the Convention. Finally, he said that the commitment of the Government of Bangladesh to cooperate with the ILO and its mechanisms, as reflected in its ratification of a number of ILO Conventions, provided sufficient assurance of its seriousness in reinforcing the fundamental rights of workers in the country.

The Worker member of the United States explained that for some years the Government of his country had made available to developing countries certain trade preferences under the generalized system of preference programme (GSP). For a developing country to be able to take advantage of these trade preferences, it had to agree to meet certain conditions, including the fact of taking steps to respect internationally recognized worker rights as defined in the ILO's core labour standards. In accordance with the GSP statute, the AFL-CIO had filed a petition in 1991 requesting that Bangladesh lose its trade preferences under the GSP because freedom of association and the right to organize and collective bargaining were explicitly prohibited in EPZs in the country. Thirteen years later, after repeated promises by successive governments, these fundamental rights remained explicitly prohibited by law for workers in EPZs. In order to avoid loss of the GSP preferences, an understanding had been negotiated with the United States Government in January 2001 to recognize these rights in EPZs as of 1 January 2004, as recorded in an officially gazetted commitment. In the meantime, workers' welfare committees would be established in EPZs. However, the Government had once again decided to abandon its commitment and he understood that further negotiations had been taking place recently for another interim period of three years or more, during which time workers' welfare committees would be further developed. However, there was little evidence of any real discussions between labour and management on these committees. As the legislation drafted by the Government to meet its latest commitment for the new transition period failed to incorporate many of the understandings negotiated with the interested parties, he indicated that the AFL-CIO would renew its petition for the withdrawal of GSP benefits. As an explanation as to why the Government had bargained in bad faith for so many years, he indicated that the largest multinational company investing in EPZs in the country was from the Republic of Korea and was known to oppose freedom of association in EPZs, under threat of the withdrawal of its investment. He added that many brand-name companies purchased products made by the factories of the company concerned, even though some of them had adopted codes of conduct, thereby illustrating the difficulties of respecting workers' rights in today's globalized economy. He regretted that the workers' welfare committees, for which the ILO had provided support, appeared to be doing little to advance the right of workers in EPZs to organize and bargain collectively. He therefore called upon the Government of Bangladesh to respect its international obligations under the Convention and for the ILO to take a more aggressive role in ensuring that acceptable labour laws were adopted for EPZs which protected the rights set out in the Convention and ensured their enforcement.

The Government member of Cuba recalled Article 4 of Convention No. 98 which specified "Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organizations and workers' organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements." She considered that it was necessary to strike a balance between adequate means and the national conditions for the application of the Convention, on the one hand, and the provisions of the legislation, on the other. She noted the declaration made by the Government of the positive measures in EPZs, and reiterated her conviction that the Government would provide in its future reports on the application of the Convention updated and more comprehensive information on the measures taken to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Government member of Pakistan said that it was a matter of satisfaction that the Government of Bangladesh was taking active steps to address the grievances of the parties concerned, as highlighted in the comments by the Committee of Experts, and was in the process of drafting a Labour Code. He expressed the firm belief that the Government would not only consider the recommendations of the social partners on the draft labour legislation, but would also remove bottlenecks and adopt laws that were in accordance with ILO Conventions. While elected workers' welfare committees were currently operating in EPZs, he expressed the strong hope that the new Labour Code would allow the establishment of trade unions in these zones and give full guarantees for the rights provided for in the Convention. He called upon the Government to enact legislation as soon as possible so that it could fulfil its obligations to the ILO.

The Government representative thanked the members of the Committee for the support expressed for the measures adopted in his country and for their other observations. He informed the Committee that wages and other conditions of employment in the public sector were determined through the recommendations of tripartite wages commissions, and therefore involved the participation of the parties concerned. Issues not covered by these recommendations were determined through collective bargaining. He also maintained that the rights of workers and employers were adequately safeguarded by the IRO, 1969. The protection provided by the Ordinance covered acts of interference by workers' and employers' organizations with each other. He added that the Labour Code that was being prepared updated existing labour legislation and had been drafted through a tripartite consultative committee. The draft legislation would guarantee many of the rights and freedoms set out in Convention No. 87. When information was available on the outcome of the negotiations on the Labour Code, it would be provided to the Committee of Experts. In response to some of the comments made during the discussion, he said that he was unable to comment on the claim that workers received wages below US$1 a day as he did not have the statistics available. He also indicated that the various rules and regulations applicable in India might not be fully adapted to the social and economic conditions in Bangladesh. In conclusion, he expressed his commitment and desire to improve the implementation of the provisions of the Convention.

The Worker members said that the Government's argument that the economic, social and cultural realities of a country and its level of economic development should be taken into account when examining the universal application of Conventions which had been discussed on numerous occasions. As the Employer members had highlighted, these discussions demonstrated that governments could never set aside the commitments they assumed when ratifying a Convention. As the Government had not shown that any progress had been made and had not expressed any interest in calling upon the technical assistance of the ILO, which had been offered in 1994, the conclusions should once again take up the conclusions reached in 1994 by the Conference Committee, which read as follows: "The Committee believed that the next report from the Government would make it possible to note real progress in the application of the Convention and, in particular, that the Government would be able to report next year on specific measures to guarantee the explicit protection of workers' organizations against measures of interference by employers in order to truly promote the voluntary application of collective bargaining agreements, in particular in small enterprises and in the public sector, and to amend the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act, 1980, to explicitly state that workers in those zones should benefit from the rights guaranteed by Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention. The Committee reminded the Government that technical assistance of the ILO could, to a great extent, contribute to helping the Government bring its legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention in these areas." The Worker members asked that their regrets concerning the failure to apply the Convention should be mentioned in the conclusions and that the Government should be requested to take the necessary measures as soon as possible.

The Employer members, with regard to the 30 per cent requirement for the registration of a trade union, noted the claim by the Government representative that this provision had not been contested by either of the social partners. While the Employer members believed that this might indeed reflect the actual situation, as it was a comfortable position for the organizations concerned not to have any competitors, it was not in compliance with the Convention. Competition between rival organizations needed to be tolerated and permitted. Although some interesting information had been provided during the discussion, this did not change the serious shortcomings with regard to the knowledge available on the situation in the country in relation to the application of the Convention. They emphasized the urgency of the case and requested the Government to provide a written reply containing full information on all the points raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee noted the statement by the Government representative and the discussion which followed. The Committee noted that the comments of the Committee of Experts related to the lack of legislative protection against acts of interference, restrictions on voluntary bargaining in the public and private sectors and the situation of workers in EPZs. The Committee noted the measures adopted to secure the representation of workers in welfare committees in EPZs. The Committee regretted to note that the Government had not provided information on its previous statement according to which these workers would enjoy the right of association as from 1 January 2004. Recalling with concern that for more than 20 years workers in EPZs had not enjoyed the rights set out in the Convention, the Committee urged the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary measures to ensure that workers benefited in full from the rights laid down in the Convention. The Committee also expressed the firm hope that the necessary measures would be adopted in the very near future to ensure full compliance with the Convention in relation to the remaining issues raised by the Committee of Experts. The Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information in this respect on an urgent basis in its next report to the Committee of Experts so that it could be examined at its next session. The Committee recalled that the technical assistance of the Office was at the disposal of the Government.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1994, Publication: 81st ILC session (1994)

A Government representative of Bangladesh described the steps being taken to bring labour legislation into compliance with the Convention. In particular, he referred to the establishment of a National Labour Law Commission in 1992, led by a senior court judge, which was tripartite in structure and included eminent legal experts. The recommendations of this Commission dealt with all points mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts, and were submitted to the Prime Minister on 4 June 1994. In addition, the Tripartite Labour Committee headed by the Minister of Labour and Manpower as well as the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour Matters, on which members of the opposition were represented, would provide their input into the drafting of a comprehensive labour code. He hoped that next year he would be able to inform the Committee that all problems raised in the observations of the Committee of Experts had been resolved.

The Workers' members stated that the problems regarding the application of the Convention were serious and long-standing and had been reported on by the Committee of Experts for a number of years. These included restrictions on voluntary bargaining in the private and public sectors, lack of protection for workers' organizations against acts of interference, and the denial of the right to engage in collective bargaining for workers in export processing zones. In view of the work of the National Labour Law Commission, which had already made recommendations on revisions to labour legislation that would address current problems of non-compliance with the Convention, they expressed cautious optimism that reasonably rapid changes would take place. They asked that the case be discussed once again next year in this Committee, so that they might determine whether the planned changes had actually occurred.

The Employers' members also were to a certain extent hopeful and noted a measure of progress, particularly because of the difference in the posture of the new and democratic Government from that when the case had been previously discussed. Although the National Labour Law Commission had made its recommendations, he appreciated that their incorporation into legislation would be time-consuming. In order to hasten the process, he urged the Government to consider requesting technical assistance from the ILO to assist in determining whether the proposed legislation would comply with Convention No. 98 and related Conventions.

The Workers' member of Poland reiterated the declaration of the Workers' members, in particular referring to restrictions on collective bargaining for small businesses, the public sector and the export processing zone, and noted the long history of this case. With regard to export processing zones, he referred to the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, which stated that there should be no limitation of workers' freedom of association and right to organize and bargain collectively as part of any incentives offered by countries to attract foreign investment. Export processing zones were used as a pretext to avoid the application of basic workers' rights. He concluded by emphasizing that in such a persistent case as this, technical assistance by the ILO would not replace an absence of the goodwill needed for the legislation to be brought into conformity with the Convention.

The Government representative reiterated his previous declaration and confirmed his hope that the problems with regard to the application of the Convention would be resolved by next year.

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and the discussion which took place. The Committee believed that the next report from the Government would make it possible to note real progress in the application of the Convention and, in particular, that the Government would be able to report next year on specific measures to guarantee the explicit protection of workers' organizations against measures of interference by employers in order to truly promote the voluntary application of collective bargaining agreements, in particular in small enterprises and in the public sector, and to amend the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act 1980 to explicitly state that workers in those zones should benefit from the rights guaranteed by Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention. The Committee reminded the Government that technical assistance of the International Labour Office could, to a great extent, contribute to helping the Government to bring its legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention in these areas.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1987, Publication: 73rd ILC session (1987)

A Government representative noted that his Government had been requested to indicate how it intended to comply with its obligations to encourage and promote collective bargaining in public sector industries, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Convention, and what specific measures it intended to take against acts constituting a violation of the right to collective bargaining under Article 2. The Government had taken careful note of the comments made by the Committee of Experts. The trade unions, except for those mentioned by the Committee of Experts, considered the current legal provisions and the practice of appointing, on the Government's initiative, an ad hoc Wages Commission to fix wages in public sector industries to be acceptable. On many occasions, in fact, the trade unions had called for the establishment of such a commission on a permanent basis. The Government considered that the present arrangements to prevent interference in collective bargaining were sufficient. It was perfectly aware of the need to intervene whenever interference took Place from whatsoever source. The Committee could rest assured of his Governments' willingness to continue its positive collaboration and to reply to any questions that might be put by the Committee of Experts or the Conference Committee.

The Workers' members noted with regret that the information which the Government had provided did not contain all the elements expected. With regard to this Convention, the Bangladesh Employers' Association had made comments, the Committee on Freedom of Association had dealt with the situation, and as early as 1984 the Free Trade Union Congress had drawn attention to the restrictions placed on collective bargaining. The application of the Convention required that employers and workers should be able to negotiate, freely between themselves, collective agreements without government interference and without the government replacing the social partners. In the case under consideration, according to the comments made by the Committee of Experts and by employers' and workers' organisation, the Government so far, and in almost all instances, had intervened in such a way that decisions had been taken by the Government itself and not by the social partners. That was a great source of concern, and in the light of the report of the Committee of Experts, the Workers' members pointed out that, under Article 2 of the Convention, specific measures had to be taken to ensure full compliance with it. They were therefore extremely anxious that the Convention should be fully respected in Bangladesh.

The Employers' members noted that, in the first paragraph of the observations in the report of the Committee of Experts, mention had been made of the comments sent in by the Bangladesh Employers' Association. However, the report gave no information on the contents of those comments and it was therefore impossible to assess them. Furthermore, it was stated that wage rates were determined by ad hoc Wages Commissions appointed by the Government on which employers and workers were represented. However, that procedure could not be considered sufficient to ensure the free negotiation which the Convention sought to promote. Consequently the Employers'members also considered that further measures would need to be taken in order to meet the conditions stipulated by the Convention.

The Committee took note of the discussion of the case and, in particular, of the information supplied by the Government representative. It urged the Government to consider ways of fully guaranteeing the free exercise of the right to collective bargaining and its appropriate protection, in accordance with the Convention. It expressed the hope that the Government would soon be in a position to indicate that progress had been made in that connection.

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

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 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 Government’s reply to the comments on the application of the Convention made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2009. It further notes the comments submitted by the National Level Trade Union Federation of Workers (NCCWE), sent along with the Government’s report, stating that there is a weak implementation of labour law in general, and more particularly an unwillingness of employers to recognize trade unions and collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection of workers in export processing zones (EPZs) against anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that in its 2009 communication, the ITUC referred to numerous problems concerning the application of the Convention in the EPZ sector, particularly in the garment industry. The ITUC further stated that although the law provides for the establishment of an EPZ labour tribunal and an EPZ labour appellate, these two bodies had yet to be established, thus denying workers access to the judicial system for their grievances. The Committee had requested the Government to provide information in respect of these matters, including information on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination in the EPZ sector submitted to the competent authorities, as well as the outcomes of those complaints.

As concerns the 2009 ITUC comments on harassment, dismissal and violence against workers in the EPZ sector, the Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the Bangladesh EPZ Authority (BEPZA) is not aware of any harassment, dismissal and violence against workers in the EPZ sector.

As concerns the establishment of an EPZ Labour Tribunal and an EPZ Labour Appellate, the Committee had previously noted that according to the Government, EPZ workers could seek judicial redress in cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its present report that it has decided to allow the existing labour courts of the country (established under the Labour Act, 2006) to dispose of EPZs industrial disputes and settle the workers’ complaints, by incorporating necessary modifications in sections 56 and 59 of the EPZ Workers Welfare Association and Industrial Relation Act (EWAIR Act 2004) (the EPZ labour law). In this respect, the Committee further notes that the EWAIR Act 2004, as amended by the EWAIR Act 2010 is now in the process of being adopted by the Parliament. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to indicate any development in this regard in its next report and to provide a copy of the EWAIR Act 2010, once adopted.

Article 2. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference. The Committee had previously noted that the Labour Act 2006 did not contain a prohibition of acts of interference designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or their organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the object of placing them under the control of employers or their organizations, and had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to adopt such a prohibition. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that protective measures are laid down in the Labour Act, particularly in sections 195 and 196 concerning “unfair labour practice on the part of the employer”, and that such act by the employer is an offence punishable under section 291 of the Labour Act, which provides that such offence is punishable by imprisonment for a term which may extend two years or with a fine of up to 10,000 Taka, or both. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the Tripartite Labour Law Review Committee (TLLRC) may consider adopting a more comprehensive prohibition, as requested by the Committee. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to adopt a comprehensive prohibition that covers acts of financial control of trade unions or trade union leaders, as well as acts of interference in internal trade union affairs. The Committee hopes that as a first step, the TLLRC will include in its recommendations that a comprehensive prohibition covering acts of financial control of trade unions or trade union leaders, as well as acts of interference in internal trade union affairs should be adopted.

Article 4. Legal requirements for collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had referred to section 179(2) of the Labour Act, which provides that a trade union may only obtain registration if it represents 30 per cent of the workers in an establishment, as well as to section 202(15) of the Labour Act, which provides that if there is more than one trade union in an enterprise, the Director of Labour shall hold a secret ballot to determine the collective bargaining agent. The Committee notes that according to the Government, there is no percentage requirement for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent. However, the Committee notes that section 202(15)(e) of the Labour Act provides that the trade-union that secures the highest votes is declared as the collective bargaining agent, providing that no trade union shall be declared to be the collective bargaining agent unless it obtains the votes of at least one third of the total workers employed in the establishment. The Committee recalls once again that the percentage requirements for registration of a trade union, and for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent set out in sections 179(2) and 202(15) of the Labour Act 2006, may impair in certain cases, in particular in respect of large enterprises, the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that where, under a system for nominating an exclusive bargaining agent, there is no union representing the required percentage to be so designated, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all unions in this unit, at least on behalf of their own members (see the General Survey, paragraph 241). In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report information on the measures taken or contemplated so as to ensure that, where no union represents one third of the employees in a bargaining unit, collective bargaining rights are granted to all unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members.

The Committee further notes that according to NCCWE, collective bargaining is limited as there is no legal provision for collective bargaining at the industry, sector or at national levels. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in this regard.

Promotion of collective bargaining in the EPZs. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the extent of collective bargaining in the EPZ sector, including statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded and the number of workers they cover. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that 274 enterprises are eligible for workers’ associations among 325 in operation and that workers’ associations referendums were held in 198 enterprises – or 72.3 per cent of the total number of eligible enterprises. However, no additional information was provided by the Government concerning the conclusion of collective agreements. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the extent of collective bargaining in the EPZ sector, including statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded since 2008, and the number of workers they cover.

Tripartite wages commissions in the public sector. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, it had requested the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that this system does not prevent free and voluntary collective bargaining. Nevertheless, the Committee, while recognizing the singularity of the public sector which allows special modalities, considers that simple consultation with unions of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State do not meet the requirements of Article 4 of the Convention. Therefore, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions, so as to favour free and voluntary negotiations between workers’ organizations and employers or their organizations. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or contemplated in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments on the application of the Convention made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2008. It further notes the latest comments submitted by the ITUC in a communication dated 26 August 2009.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection of workers in export processing zones (EPZs) against anti-union discrimination. Previously the Committee had taken note of the ITUC’s comments made in 2007 that there were numerous instances of dismissals, suspensions and harassment of trade unionists in EPZs, in particular in the garment and textile industries, and that the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) had failed to protect trade unionists, thus significantly undermining the extension of associational rights to workers in EPZs. The Committee had requested the Government to provide its observations on the ITUC’s comments and to furnish statistical information on the number of anti-union discrimination complaints submitted to the competent authorities and their outcomes since November 2006, when workers’ associations were authorized in the EPZs, as well as the number of collective agreements concluded in EPZ enterprises and their coverage. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that from August to December 2006, 16 trade unions in different garment industries were registered.

As concerns protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee notes that the Government, in its reply to the ITUC’s 2008 comments, indicates that the BEPZA has taken steps to protect the interests of workers and issued instructions pertaining to labour administration in the zones. Furthermore, industrial relations departments have been established in each EPZ; the industrial relations departments entertain worker grievances and complaints and engage in supervision and monitoring so as to maintain a harmonious industrial relations environment in the EPZs. While noting this information, the Committee notes that in its 2009 communication the ITUC refers once again to numerous instances of harassment, dismissal and violence against workers in the EPZ sector, particularly in the garment industry. The ITUC further states that although the law provides for the establishment of an EPZ Labour Tribunal and an EPZ Labour Appellate, these two bodies had yet to be established – thus denying workers access to the judicial system for their grievances.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that as required by the EPZ Workers’ Association and Industrial Relations Act, two conciliators and panels of arbitrators have been appointed to facilitate dispute resolution among the workers and employers. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that EPZ workers can also seek judicial redress in cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in respect of these matters, including information on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination in the EPZ sector submitted to the competent authorities, as well as the outcomes of those complaints.

The Committee notes the ITUC’s indication that at the start of 2008 workers voted to establish trade unions in 69 EPZ enterprises, and that pursuant to a decision of the BEPZA, 124 more EPZ enterprises must hold trade union elections by 2010. The Committee further notes that the Government, in its reply to the ITUC’s 2008 comments, states that referendums and elections on workers’ associations had been completed in 188 out of a total of 250 eligible EPZ enterprises – or 75.2 per cent of the total number of eligible enterprises. Noting these developments, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the extent of collective bargaining in the EPZ sector, including statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded and the number of workers they cover.

Article 2. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference. The Committee had previously noted that the Labour Act 2006 did not contain a prohibition of acts of interference designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or their organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the object of placing them under the control of employers or their organizations, and had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to adopt such a prohibition. The Committee notes that the Government refers to legal provisions which would confer partial protection against acts of interference. These provisions state that no employer (or anyone acting on his or her behalf) shall: induce any person to refrain from becoming, or to cease to be a member or officer of a trade union, by conferring or offering to confer any advantage on, or by procuring or offering to procure any advantage for such person or any other person; compel any officer of the collective bargaining agent to sign a memorandum of settlement or arrive at a settlement by using intimidation, coercion, pressure, threat, confinement to a place, physical injury, disconnection of water, power and telephone facilities and such other methods; or interfere with, or in any way influence, ballots. The Committee requests the Government to indicate which law contains the abovementioned provisions, as well as to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to adopt a comprehensive prohibition that: (1) covers acts of financial control of trade unions or trade union leaders, as well as acts of interference in internal trade union affairs; and (2) is coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against all acts of interference in the establishment and functioning of workers’ organizations by employers and vice versa.

Article 4. Legal requirements to collective bargaining. In its previous comment, the Committee had referred to section 179(2) of the Labour Act, which provides that a trade union may only obtain registration if it represents 30 per cent of the workers in an establishment, as well as to section 202(15) of the Labour Act, which provides that if there is more than one trade union in an enterprise, no trade union shall be declared to be the collective bargaining agent unless it obtains the votes of at least one third of the employees in a secret ballot. The Committee regrets that the Government provides no information respecting this matter. Noting once again that the percentage requirements for registration of a trade union and for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent set out in sections 179(2) and 202(15) of the Labour Act 2006 may impair the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report any measures taken or contemplated so as to lower these requirements.

Tripartite wages commissions in the public sector. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had requested the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). The Committee notes with regret that, as with the other legislative matters previously raised, the Government fails to provide information in this regard. In these circumstances, the Committee once again recalls that Article 4 relates to free and voluntary negotiations between employers or their organizations and workers’ organizations with a view to the regulation of wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of collective agreements, including with regard to public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or contemplated to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions, so as to favour free and voluntary negotiations between workers’ organizations and employers or their organizations, who should be able to appoint freely their negotiating representatives.

Finally, noting the Government’s statement that it is fully committed to complying with the ILO’s Conventions, the Committee requests the Government to adopt all the measures requested without delay.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report as well as its reply to the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), now the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), in 2006.

The Committee further notes the entry into force of the Labour Act 2006, which replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 (IRO). It also notes with regret however, that the new law does not appear to contain any significant improvement in relation to the Committee’s previous comments.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. Protection of workers in export processing zones (EPZs) against anti‑union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee, recalling the request by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2006 for full information on the situation of workers in EPZs who, for more than 20 years, have not enjoyed the rights set out in the Convention, requested the Government to take all necessary measures to eliminate the obstacles to the exercise of trade union rights in law and in practice in EPZs and to provide statistics on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination and of collective agreements concluded in EPZs. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that nowadays the people of Bangladesh enjoy the highest freedom to form associations and engage in collective bargaining as the new Labour Act of 2006 enables workers without distinction whatsoever, to form trade unions and therefore, to raise industrial disputes and to go to the court for redress of termination for trade union activities (sections 182 and 176); moreover, through the EPZ Workers’ Association and Industrial Relations Act 2004, the Government is taking all measures to keep a sound industrial situation in EPZs.

The Committee notes the latest comments received from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), in a communication dated 27 August 2007, with regard to serious violations of Article 1 of the Convention in EPZs in practice, in particular in the garment and textile industries. The ITUC refers to numerous instances of anti-union discrimination against workers who attempted to establish workers’ associations in the EPZs since 1 November 2006 when the establishment of such associations was authorized on the basis of the EPZ Worker Association and Industrial Relations Act of 2004; in particular, the ITUC refers to dismissals and suspensions of Worker Representation and Welfare Committee (WRWC) leaders, as well as systematic harassment, intimidation and violence against such leaders and members by employers with total impunity. According to the ITUC, the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) has failed to protect trade unionists, thus significantly undermining the extension of associational rights to workers in EPZs. The Committee requests the Government to send its comments on the latest observations of the ITUC dated 27 August 2007. Noting moreover that the Government has not provided the previously requested data, the Committee requests the Government to furnish statistical information on the number of anti-union discrimination complaints submitted to the competent authorities since November 2006 when workers’ associations were authorized in the EPZs, and the outcome of such complaints, as well as the number of collective agreements concluded in EPZ enterprises and their coverage.

2. Article 2. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference. The Committee has been raising for a number of years the need to amend the law so as to ensure sufficient protection against acts of interference. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that acts of interference envisaged in Article 2 of the Convention are rare in Bangladesh and workers’ organizations have every right to complain in this regard. Acts of interference constitute an unfair labour practice and a punishable offence under sections 195 and 196 of the Labour Act, 2006. The Committee notes that section 195 of the Labour Act 2006, which replaced the IRO, introduces certain improvements in relation to the previous legislation in that it does not explicitly authorize an employer to require that a person appointed to managerial posts cease to be a member or officer of a trade union and introduces as an unfair labour practice, any transfer of the president, general secretary, organizing secretary or treasurer of any registered trade union without their consent. However, this provision still does not contain a prohibition of acts of interference designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or their organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing them under the control of employers or their organizations. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to adopt a specific prohibition, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, against acts of interference in the establishment and functioning of workers’ organizations by employers and vice versa.

3. Article 4. Legal requirements to collective bargaining. The Committee observes that section 202 of the Labour Act 2006, contains a slight amendment in relation to the previous section 22 of the IRO to the effect that if there is only one trade union in an establishment, that trade union shall be deemed to be the collective bargaining agent for the establishment without explicitly requiring any longer that the trade union in question represent at least one-third of the workers in the establishment. The Committee also notes, however, that the Labour Act maintains the old section 7(2) of the IRO (now section 179(2) of the Labour Act to which the Government refers in its report) to the effect that a trade union may only obtain registration if it represents 30 per cent of the workers in an establishment. Moreover, section 202(15) of the Labour Act reiterates the old provision of section 22(15) IRO to the effect that if there is more than one trade union in an enterprise, no trade union shall be declared to be the collective bargaining agent unless it obtains the votes of at least one-third of the employees in a secret ballot. Noting once again that the percentage requirements set for registration of a trade union and for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent (sections 179(2) and 202(15) of the Labour Act 2006) may impair the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report any measures taken or contemplated so as to lower these requirements.

4. Tripartite wages commissions in the public sector. The Committee recalls from its previous comments that it has requested the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). The Committee notes from the ICFTU’s comments that, being deprived of the right to organize, workers in the public sector and state enterprises with the exception of railway, postal and telecommunication services cannot exercise the right to collective bargaining through trade unions (an issue also raised in relation to the right to organize under Convention No. 87). The Committee notes from the Government’s report that tripartite commissions in which all the social partners, including representatives of workers, participate, were established to ensure uniform wages in the state-owned enterprises. The Committee once again recalls that Article 4 of the Convention relates to free and voluntary negotiations between employers or their organizations and workers’ organizations with a view to the regulation of wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of collective agreements, including with regard to public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. It therefore once again requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or contemplated to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions, so as to favour free and voluntary negotiations between workers’ organizations and employers or their organizations, who should be able to appoint freely their negotiating representatives.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report. It notes that it does not contain all the information requested, despite the fact that the Conference Committee, after noting several discrepancies between the Convention and national law, had requested the Government, in June 2006, to send information on an urgent basis in its next report concerning workers in export processing zones (EPZs) who, for more than 20 years, have not enjoyed the rights set out in the Convention.

The Committee takes note of the discussion which took place at the Conference Committee in 2006, as well as the observations received from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), in a communication dated 12 July 2006. The latter, while mainly concerning legislative issues raised in the previous observations of the Committee, underlines serious problems regarding the application of the provisions of the Convention in practice, in particular in the garment and textile industries, including harassment and anti-union discrimination. Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government’s reply of 18 January 2006 to the comments made by the ICFTU on 31 August 2005. The Committee notes that the Government limits itself to referring to the legal provisions prohibiting harassment and acts of anti-union discrimination and establishing imprisonment or fines in cases of infringement; according to the Government, the application of the Convention is not barred in the garment and ship-recycling industries. The Committee requests the Government to send its additional comments regarding the ICFTU’s observations contained in its communication dated 12 July 2006, indicating also the complaints submitted to the authorities in the last two years for anti-union practices.

1. Trade union rights in export processing zones (EPZs). In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the 2005 comments of the ICFTU regarding restrictions on the right to organize in the EPZs. In particular, the ICFTU stated that the new legislation provides that in order to form an association entitled to elect representatives who have the power to negotiate and sign collective agreements in any industrial unit, at least 30 per cent of the eligible workers of that unit must make an application to this effect. It will also have to hold a referendum to ascertain support for the association in which over 50 per cent of the total workforce must participate and over 50 per cent of the votes cast must be in favour of the establishment of a workers’ association. The Committee notes the Government response to these comments stating that workers’ associations are allowed to form under the EPZ Worker Association and Industrial Relations Act of 2004. The Committee recalls however the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2327 (see 337th Report, paragraphs 183-213) relating to important restrictions of the trade union rights of workers in the EPZ Workers’ Association and Industrial Relations Act 2004 and observes that it requested the Government to modify this Act. The Committee also observes that the ICFTU has pointed out that workers made numerous reports of employer interference or irregularities in elections for workers’ committees overseen by the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA), and that discrimination against leaders of Active Worker Representation and Welfare Committees (WRWCs) was reported, and a significant number of these leaders and activist members were unfairly terminated with permission from the BEPZA. The Committee recalls that the Conference Committee had urged the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary measures to ensure that these workers benefited in full from the rights laid down in the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to eliminate the obstacles to the exercise of trade union rights in law and in practice in EPZs. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of all measures taken in this regard, and to submit statistics on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination as well as the number of collective agreements concluded in EPZs.

2. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference. The Committee notes with regret that the Government repeats, at the Conference Committee, in its last report and in its comments concerning the ICFTU’s communication, its previous statement about this issue and, particularly, that sufficient protection is ensured under the general provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 (IRO), relating to trade union rights and freedom of association. The Government adds that protection against interference will be strengthened in the new Labour Code which has already been passed by the Parliament. The Committee recalled that Article 2 of the Convention requires the prohibition of acts of interference by organizations of workers and employers (or their agents) in each other’s affairs, designed in particular to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee once again requests the Government to adopt specific measures, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, against acts of interference and to keep it informed in this respect.

3. Legal requirements to collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to lower the percentage requirement, which is 30 per cent, for registration of a trade union and the requirement to have one-third of employees as its members in order to be able to negotiate at the enterprise level (see sections 7(2) and 22 of the IRO). The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous statement to the effect that these requirements are justified in order to limit the multiplicity of trade unions, that they strengthen trade unions, and that they are unanimously agreed upon by the social partners. The Committee was bound to point out once again that these requirements may impair and make difficult the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining and that where, under a system for nominating an exclusive bargaining agent, there is no union representing the required percentage to be so designated, collective bargaining rights should be granted to the existing unions, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee noted the Government’s statement, reiterated in the Government’s report, according to which the existing shortcomings (if any) will be removed through the provisions laid down in the future labour code. The Committee notes however with regret that, at the Conference Committee, the Government representative of Bangladesh maintained the position that the IRO 30 per cent requirement does not contravene the intent of the provisions of the Convention or the rights of workers to form trade unions as this requirement’s aim is to ensure broader and more representative workers’ bodies, to maintain the unity of the workers in the establishment and to promote effective representation of the workers. The Committee requests the Government to lower the percentage requirements set for registration of a trade union and for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent and to keep it informed in this respect.

4. Practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to amend the legislation and to modify the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions. The Committee notes the statement of the Government according to which tripartism is the most reasonable way of determining wages, particularly in the less viable industries, as otherwise there will be chaos for the Government as employer; the Committee notes that in its report, the Government reiterates that the collective bargaining agent at the enterprise or sector level has the right to bargain with their employer (and this usually happens in practice) for the effective implementation of matters settled by the wages commission; the present system safeguards the interests of workers in less viable industries and achieves a fair and equitable wage structure. The Committee once again recalls that, in line with the Convention, free and voluntary collective bargaining should be conducted between directly interested workers’ organizations and employers or their organizations, which should be able to appoint freely their negotiating representatives. The Committee requests once again the Government to amend the legislation and to modify the present practice in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

5. Workers excluded from collective bargaining. The Committee notes from the ICFTU’s comments that, being deprived of the right to organize, workers in the public sector and state enterprises with the exception of railway, postal and telecommunication services cannot exercise the right to collective bargaining through trade unions.

6. The Committee notes that it has been commenting for a number of years on the need to finalize the draft Labour Code. The Committee notes that the Government stated once again at the Conference Committee and in its comments to the ICFTU’s observations, that the suggestions received from different stakeholders on the draft Labour Code have been reviewed by a tripartite committee, and that the Code is finalized. The Committee notes that in its report, the Government indicates that the Labour Code has recently been passed by the Parliament and that it believes that the Committee’s observations are duly reflected in the legislation. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that the above comments are duly taken into consideration and hopes that they have been taken into account in the draft Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this respect. The Committee recalls that the technical assistance of the Office is at the Government’s disposal.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee further notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), which concern legislative issues raised in its previous observation. The ICFTU also underlines several problems regarding the application of the Convention in the garment and ship recycling industries, dismissals of trade union officers and members and harassment of workers suspected of carrying out trade union activities. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations thereon.

Trade union rights in export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee notes the comments of the ICFTU regarding restrictions on the right to organize in the EPZs. In particular, the ICFTU states that the new legislation provides that in order to form an association entitled to elect representatives who have the power to negotiate and sign collective agreements in any industrial unit, at least 30 per cent of the eligible workers of that unit must make an application to this effect. It will also have to hold a referendum to ascertain support for the association in which over 50 per cent of the total workforce must participate and over 50 per cent of the votes cast must be in favour of the establishment of a workers’ association. The Committee also notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2327 (see 337th Report, paragraphs 183-213) relating to the restrictions of the trade union rights of workers in EPZs. The Committee notes the EPZ Workers’ Association and Industrial Relations Act 2006 and observes that the Committee on Freedom of Association requested the Government to modify this Act. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to eliminate the obstacles to the exercise of trade union rights in law and in practice in EPZs. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of all measures taken in this regard, and to submit statistics on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination as well as the number of collective agreements concluded in EPZs.

Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference. The Committee notes with regret that the Government repeats its previous statement about this issue and, particularly, that sufficient protection is ensured under the general provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969, relating to trade union rights and freedom of association. The Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention requires the prohibition of "acts of interference" by organizations of workers and employers (or their agents) in each other’s affairs, designed in particular to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee once again requests the Government to adopt specific measures, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, against acts of interference and to keep it informed in this respect.

Legal requirements to collective bargaining. In its previous observation, the Committee had asked the Government to lower the percentage requirement, which is 30 per cent, for registration of a trade union and the requirement to have one-third of employees as its members in order to be able to negotiate at the enterprise level (see sections 7(2) and 22 of the IRO). The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous statement to the effect that these requirements are justified in order to limit the multiplicity of trade unions and that they are not opposed by the social partners. The Committee is bound to point out once again that these requirements may impair and make difficult the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining and that where, under a system for nominating an exclusive bargaining agent, there is no union representing the required percentage to be so designated, collective bargaining rights should be granted to the existing unions, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee notes the Government’s statement according to which the existing shortcoming (if any) will be removed through the provisions laid down in the future labour code. The Committee requests the Government to lower the percentage requirements set for registration of a trade union and for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent and to keep it informed in this respect.

Practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). In its previous observation, the Committee had requested the Government to amend the legislation and to modify the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions. The Committee notes the statement of the Government according to which tripartism is the most reasonable way of determining wages as otherwise there will be chaos for the Government as employer; the collective bargaining agent at the enterprise or sector level has the right to bargain with their employer (and this usually happens in practice) for the effective implementation of matters settled by the wages commission; the present system safeguards the interests of workers in less viable industries and achieves a fair and equitable wage structure. The Committee once again recalls that, in line with the Convention, free and voluntary collective bargaining should be conducted between directly interested workers’ organizations and employers or their organizations, which should be able to appoint freely their negotiating representatives. The Committee requests once again the Government to amend the legislation and to modify the present practice in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes that it has been commenting for a number of years on the need to finalize the draft Labour Code. The Committee notes that the Government states once again that the suggestions received from different stakeholders on the draft Labour Code are reviewed by a tripartite committee, and that the Code is now almost at the final stage. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that the above comments are duly taken into consideration and reflected in the legislation in the near future. The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report of any progress made in this respect.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 95th Session and to reply in detail to the present comments in 2006.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. The Committee notes the discussions in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2004. The Committee further notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) raising questions about the application of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations thereon in its next report.

1. Protection of workers’ and employers’ organizations against acts of interference by each other. The Committee notes that the Government merely repeats its previous statement and refers to sections 15, 16, 47, 47A, 47B, 48, 53 and 63 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969. The Committee once again points out that these sections concern the protection of workers against "acts of anti-union discrimination" and once again recalls that Article 2 of the Convention requires the prohibition of "acts of interference" by organizations of workers and employers (or their agents) in each other’s affairs, designed in particular to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to adopt specific measures, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, against acts of interference, and keep it informed in this respect.

2. Trade union rights in export processing zones (EPZs). In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to transmit the Declaration of 31 January 2001 (SRO No. 24, Law/2001) concerning the right of association in EPZs. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a new Act entitled "The EPZs Workers’ Association and the Industrial Relation Act 2004" has been enacted by the Parliament and published in the Bangladesh Gazette on 18 July 2004. The Committee requests the Government to provide the copy of this text.

3. Thirty per cent requirement for registration of a trade union and the requirement to have one-third of employees as its members in order to be able to negotiate at the enterprise level (sections 7(2) and 22 of the IRO). The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous statement to the effect that these requirements are justified in the national socio-political and economic context and are not opposed by social partners. The Government explains that the aim of section 7(2) is to "avoid mushroom growth of trade union and to maintain unity of workers in an establishment". The Committee is bound to point out once again that these requirements may impair and make difficult the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining and that where, under a system for nominating an exclusive bargaining agent, there is no union representing the required percentage to be so designated, collective bargaining rights should be granted to the existing unions, at least on behalf of their own members. It therefore once again requests the Government to lower the percentage requirements set for registration of a trade union and recognition of a collective bargaining agent and to keep it informed in this respect.

4. Practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). The Committee notes the statement of the Government in this respect. The Industrial Workers’ Wages and Productivity Commission (IWWPC) was formed by the Government under the principle of tripartism with equal numbers of members from the Government, the employers and the workers. The recommendations of the IWWPC cover only the rates of wages and other conditions of employment through a government-appointed wages commission on the interests of workers. Various other issues concerning workers are not covered by the recommendations of the IWWPC. For those issues, a collective bargaining agent (CBA) enjoys the right of bargaining with the stakeholders. The CBAs in the public sector enterprises have regularly exercised the right to bargain in connection with the proper implementation of the recommendations of the Commission. Voluntary bargaining is thus not at all restricted in the pubic sector enterprises. The Committee once again recalls that, in line with the Convention, free and voluntary collective bargaining should be conducted between the directly interested workers’ organization and employers or their organizations, which should be able to appoint freely their negotiating representatives. It therefore once again requests the Government to amend its legislation and to modify the present practice so as to bring them into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

5. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it is taking the necessary action in order to submit the draft Labour Code to the Parliament. The Government states that the workers’ side has submitted some new proposals and that these points need thorough examination. At present, the tripartite Labour Code Review Committee headed by the Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and Employment and consisting of ten members is examining the new proposals received from different agencies. The Committee notes that the Government considers that in the absence of a new Labour Code, the existing laws reasonably protect the rights of workers, but that it nevertheless desires to finalize the Labour Code as soon as possible. In this respect, the Committee, once again, strongly encourages the Government to ensure that the above comments are duly taken into consideration and reflected in the future legislation. The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report of any progress made in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the following points:

-  lack of legislative protection against acts of interference (Article 2 of the Convention);

-  rights guaranteed for workers in export processing zones (EPZs). In this connection, the Committee had noted with interest that the Government had issued on 31 January 2001 a declaration (SRO No. 24, Law/2001) that would allow workers in EPZs the right of association and other facilities, as from 1 January 2004 and had requested the Government to provide the text of that declaration;

-  obstacles to voluntary bargaining in the private sector (sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO)). In this connection, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary steps to remove the requirements: (a) in section 7(2) that, in order to be registered under the IRO, a trade union must have a membership of at least 30 per cent of the total number of workers in the establishment or group of establishments in which it was formed; and (b) in sections 22 and 22A of the IRO that only unions which were registered in accordance with section 7 may become collective bargaining agents;

-  restrictions on voluntary bargaining in the public sector (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974), in particular through the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of government-appointed wages commissions.

1. Protection of workers’ and employers’ organizations against acts of interference by each other (or their agents). The Committee notes that the Government refers to sections 15, 16 and 53 of the IRO concerning the protection of workers against "acts of anti-union discrimination". The Committee recalls, however, that Article 2 of the Convention requires the prohibition of "acts of interference" by organizations of workers and employers (or their agents) in each other’s affairs, designed in particular to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee therefore requests the Government to adopt specific measures, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, against acts of interference, and keep it informed in this respect.

2. Trade union rights in EPZs. The Committee regrets that the Government has not sent the declaration of 31 January 2001 (SRO No. 24, Law/2001) concerning the right of association in EPZs and requests it to provide the text thereof.

3. Thirty per cent requirement for registration of a trade union and the requirement to have one-third of employees as its members in order to be able to negotiate at the enterprise level (sections 7(2) and 22 of the IRO). While noting that the Government considers that these requirements are justified in the national socio-political and economic context and are not opposed by workers, the Committee points out that these requirements may impair and make difficult the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to lower the percentage requirements set for registration of a trade union and collective bargaining (at least on behalf of its own members) and to keep it informed in this respect.

The Committee further recalls that where, under a system for nominating an exclusive bargaining agent, there is no union representing the required percentage to be so designated, collective bargaining rights should be granted to the existing unions, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend section 22 so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and keep it informed in this respect.

4. Practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). While noting that the Government indicates that the present tripartite system is facilitative and gainful and that the collective bargaining agents enjoy the right to bargain with their stakeholders so that voluntary bargaining is not restricted, the Committee recalls that, in line with the Convention, free and voluntary collective bargaining should be conducted between the directly interested workers’ organization and an employer or an employers’ organization, which should be able to appoint freely their negotiating representatives. It therefore once again requests the Government to amend its legislation and to modify the present practice so as to bring them into conformity with the Convention, and to keep it informed in this respect.

5. The Committee further notes that the Government once again indicates that the draft Labour Code, submitted by the National Labour Commission, had raised several objections from various quarters (workers, employers and other legal bodies) and was reviewed by a committee of legal experts which, in turn, has submitted its views and report, and that the Government is taking active steps to have it passed by Parliament. The Committee, once again, strongly encourages the Government to ensure that the above comments are duly taken into consideration and reflected in the future legislation. The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report of any progress made in this respect.

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

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

The Committee’s previous comments referred to discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention on the following points:

-  obstacles to voluntary bargaining in the private sector (sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO)). The Committee had pointed out that collective bargaining was not developed in small establishments because sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the IRO appeared to inhibit the establishment of "sectoral" or "industry" unions. It had therefore requested the Government to take the necessary steps to remove the requirements: (a) in section 7(2) that, in order to be registered under the IRO, a trade union must have a membership of at least 30 per cent of the total number of workers in the establishment or group of establishments in which it was formed; and (b) in sections 22 and 22A of the IRO that only unions which were registered in accordance with section 7 may become collective bargaining agents;

-  restrictions on voluntary bargaining in the public sector (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974), in particular through the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of government-appointed wages commissions;

-  lack of legislative protection against acts of interference (Article 2 of the Convention);

-  denial of the rights guaranteed by Article 1 (Protection against anti-union discrimination), Article 2 (Protection against acts of interference), and Article 4 (Right to bargain collectively) of the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 11A of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act, 1980).

The Committee notes with interest that the Government has issued on 31 January 2001 a declaration (SRO No. 24, Law/2001) that will allow workers in EPZs the right of association and other facilities, as from 1 January 2004. The Committee requests the Government to provide the text of that declaration and to keep it informed of progress made in this respect, hopefully before 1 January 2004.

As regards the other issues, the Committee is bound to note that the Government, once again, repeats more or less the same arguments as raised in previous reports, to deny the existence of the above violations or, alternatively to justify them. The Committee once again brings the Government’s attention to the fact that these discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention constitute serious violations of the Convention, a point which the Committee has commented on in detail for several years.

The Committee further notes that the draft Labour Code, submitted by the National Labour Commission and apparently raised several objections from various quarters (workers, employers and other legal bodies), was reviewed by a committee of legal experts which, in turn, has submitted its views and report, and that the Government is taking active steps to have it passed by Parliament. The Committee, once again, strongly encourages the Government to ensure that the above comments are duly taken into consideration, so that they are reflected in the text as adopted by Parliament and, to that end, invites it once again to consider requesting ILO technical assistance. The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report of any progress made in this respect.

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

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

The Committee’s previous comments referred to discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention on the following points:

-  obstacles to voluntary bargaining in the private sector (sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO)). The Committee had pointed out that collective bargaining is not developed in small establishments because sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the IRO appear to inhibit the establishment of "sectoral" or "industry" unions; it had therefore requested the Government to take the necessary steps to remove the requirements: (a) in section 7(2) that, in order to be registered under the IRO, a trade union must have a membership of at least 30 per cent of the total number of workers in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed; and (b) in sections 22 and 22A of the IRO that only unions which are registered in accordance with section 7 may become collective bargaining agents;

-  restrictions on voluntary bargaining in the public sector (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974), in particular through the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of government-appointed wages commissions;

-  lack of legislative protection against acts of interference guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention;

-  denial of the rights guaranteed by Article 1 (Protection against anti-union discrimination, Article 2 (Protection against acts of interference), and Article 4 (Right to bargain collectively)of the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 11A of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act, 1980).

The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government repeats more or less the same arguments that it raised in previous reports to deny the existence of the above violations or, alternatively, to justify them.

The Committee once again brings to the Government’s attention that the above discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention constitute serious violations of the Convention, a point which the Committee has commented on in detail for several years. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Tripartite Review Committee constituted by the Government is still examining the draft Labour Code submitted by the National Labour Law Commission. In its previous observations, the Committee had observed that the recommendations of the National Labour Law Commission, which was tripartite in nature and included eminent legal experts, dealt with all the points previously raised by the Committee. The Committee strongly encourages the Government to ensure that the Tripartite Review Committee will, during its examination of the draft Labour Code, take into consideration the Committee’s previous detailed comments on discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any progress made in the adoption of the draft Labour Code in its next report and invites it to consider ILO technical assistance.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

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

The Committee's previous comments referred to discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention on the following points:

-- obstacles to voluntary bargaining in the private sector (sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO)). The Committee had pointed out that collective bargaining is not developed in small establishments because sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the IRO appear to inhibit the establishment of "sectoral" or "industry" unions; it therefore had requested the Government to take the necessary steps to remove the requirement: (a) in section 7(2) that, in order to be registered under the IRO, a trade union must have a membership of at least 30 per cent of the total number of workers in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed; and (b) in sections 22 and 22A of the IRO that only unions which are registered in accordance with section 7 may become collective bargaining agents;

-- restrictions on voluntary bargaining in the public sector (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974), in particular through the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of government-appointed Wages Commissions;

-- lack of legislative protection against acts of interference guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention;

-- denial of the rights guaranteed by Articles 1 (protection against anti-union discrimination), 2 (protection against acts of interference), and 4 (right to bargain collectively) of the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 11A of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act, 1980).

The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government repeats more or less the same arguments that it raised in previous reports to deny the existence of the above violations or, alternatively, to justify them.

The Committee would once again remind the Government that the above discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention, which the Committee has commented on in detail for several years, constitute serious violations of the Convention, which was ratified in 1972. The Committee notes the Government's statement that it is re-examining the draft Labour Code submitted by the National Labour Law Commission. In its most recent observation, the Committee had noted that the recommendations of the National Labour Law Commission, which was tripartite in nature and included eminent legal experts, dealt with all the points previously raised by the Committee. In re-examining the draft Labour Code, the Committee would strongly encourage the Government to take into consideration the Committee's previous detailed comments on discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any progress made in the preparation of this draft Labour Code in its next report and invites it to consider technical assistance from the ILO.

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report, as well as the statement made by the Government representative at the Conference Committee in June 1994 and the discussion which took place thereafter.

Voluntary bargaining in the private sector

The Committee had observed previously that section 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO), read with sections 22 and 22A, could serve to impair the development of effective bargaining in the small business sector by inhibiting the development of industry or sectoral unions.

In response to the Committee's request the previous year for information on the measures taken in practice to encourage and promote collective bargaining, particularly in the small business sector, the Government indicates that in 1993 for instance, 209 collective bargaining agreements were concluded. However, in the small business sector where collective bargaining is not adequately developed, the Minimum Wages Board (MWB) determines minimum wages and other fringe benefits. Thus, minimum wages have been fixed in 38 industries, and those in other small businesses are in the process of being revised.

The Committee would once again point out, however, that collective bargaining is not developed in small establishments because sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the IRO, 1969, appear to inhibit the establishment of "sectoral" or "industry" unions. It therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to remove the requirement: (a) in section 7(2) that, in order to be registered under the IRO, a trade union must have a membership of at least 30 per cent of the total number of workers in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed; and (b) in sections 22 and 22A of the IRO that only unions which are registered in accordance with section 7 may become collective bargaining agents.

Voluntary bargaining in the public sector

For some years the Committee has been expressing its concern in relation to the development of collective bargaining in the public sector, and in particular the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of government-appointed Wages Commissions.

In its report, the Government replies that although wages and fringe benefits are determined by wages and pay Commissions, the management of public and semi-public enterprises do negotiate with plant-level collective bargaining agents and their federations on problems and anomalies arising from the implementation of the recommendations of the various commissions. The Government, on a higher level, also negotiates informally with trade union federations; hence collective bargaining principles are very much respected in Bangladesh.

In the light of this reply, the Committee can only reiterate that conformity with Article 4 of the Convention requires that the Government take steps to encourage and promote the development and utilization of machinery for the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements; in this respect, it draws the Government's attention to paragraphs 244 to 248 and 261 to 265 of its 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining.

Protection against interference

While sections 15 and 16 of the IRO of 1969 are designed to provide protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee had asked the Government to review its legislation with a view to adopting an appropriate measure of protection against "acts of interference" for purposes of Article 2 of the Convention, which seek to ensure that no employer or employee organizations may support any organization of workers by financial or other means with a view to placing such organization under the control of the employer organization.

The Government indicates that the tripartite National Labour Law Commission set up in 1992 has recommended that these provisions be amended for wider coverage; these recommendations are under the active consideration of the Government.

The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in respect of such eventual amendments.

Denial of right to engage in collective bargaining for workers in export processing zones

The Committee had requested the Government to take steps to amend section 11A of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act 1980, since it denied workers in such zones (EPZs) the rights guaranteed by Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention.

The Government, in its report, repeats its argument that the said provision is intended to promote investment and generate employment opportunities and to improve the balance of payment position with added foreign exchange earnings needed for the growth of the economy. It adds that EPZs are now an issue not only in Bangladesh but also in an increasing number of countries in Asia, and are therefore a reality which cannot be ignored.

While aware that reasons of national economic development are behind the setting up of these EPZs, the Committee would once again stress that a blanket denial to a whole category of workers of the protections and rights defined in the Convention constitute a violation of the Convention. It also draws the Government's attention to the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, adopted by the ILO Governing Body in 1977, which states in paragraph 45 that "where governments of host countries offer special incentives to attract foreign investment, these incentives should not include any limitation of the workers' freedom of association or the right to organize and bargain collectively". The Committee, therefore, would request the Government to take steps to amend the 1980 Act so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

Finally, the Committee understands from the statement of the Government representative at the Conference Committee in June 1994, that the recommendations of the National Labour Law Commission, which is tripartite in structure and includes eminent legal experts, deal with all the points mentioned in the Committee's previous report, and were submitted to the Prime Minister on 4 June 1994. In addition, the Tripartite Labour Committee headed by the Minister of Labour and Manpower, as well as the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour Matters (in which opposition parliamentary members are represented) would provide their input into the drafting of a comprehensive labour code.

The Committee would request the Government to keep it informed on any progress made in the preparation of this new labour code, including whether it contains all or some of the recommendations of the National Labour Law Commission. The Committee would further request the Government to provide it with a copy of this draft labour code once it has been fully drawn up.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report, the observations of the Bangladesh Employers' Association (BEA) of 15 July 1991 and 13 October 1993, as well as the observations of the Bangladesh Workers' Federation (BWF) dated 30 January 1993.

Voluntary bargaining in the private sector

The Committee had observed that section 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, read with sections 22 and 22A, may serve to impair the development of effective bargaining in the small business sector by inhibiting the development of industry or sectoral unions.

The Committee notes that the Government as well as the BEA repeat their previous statement that under sections 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, workers are free to unite and set up organizations of their own choice, they are allowed to raise industrial disputes and proceed to negotiate under provisions of sections 26, 27(A), 28, 29(A), 30 and 31 of the Ordinance. The Committee notes that, according to information provided by the Government in a previous report, wages and conditions of work in small industries are determined by the Minimum Wages Board. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures taken, in keeping with Article 4 of the Convention, to encourage and promote the development and utilization of machinery for the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements on terms and conditions of employment, particularly in the small business sector, and to provide information on the number of collective agreements, the number of workers concerned, and generally all relevant information on the practical application of the said measures.

Voluntary bargaining in the public sector

The Committee notes that in its comments, the BWF refers to Act No X of 1974, section 3, which allows the Government to determine terms and conditions of service of workers, such determination precluding any agreements, settlements or awards in respect of the determined matters. The Committee recalls that it has repeatedly commented, in previous observations, on the incompatibility of this limitation on voluntary collective bargaining with the principles of the Convention.

The Committee has expressed its concern, for a number of years, in relation to the development of collective bargaining in the public sector and in particular the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of Government-appointed Wages Commissions. It notes that the Government in its report merely reiterates its views.

The Committee can only once more draw the Government's attention to Article 4 of the Convention, which requires that the Government take steps to encourage and promote the development and utilization of machinery for the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements.

Protection against interference

While sections 15 and 16 of the Ordinance of 1969 are designed to provide protection against acts of anti-union discrimination with respect to workers, the Committee again asks the Government to take appropriate measures with a view to amending its legislation so as to provide explicit protection to organizations against acts of interference. The Committee recalls that, to conform with Article 2 of the Convention, special measures should be taken, in particular through legislation, accompanied by appropriate remedies and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions on this point. It accordingly asks the Government again to re-examine the situation and to keep it informed of all developments.

Denial of right to engage in collective bargaining for workers in export processing zones

The Committee had observed that section 11A of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act 1980 appears to deny workers in such zones the right guaranteed by Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention. In its report, the Government states that the said provision was intended to promote investment and generate employment opportunities and also to improve the balance of payment position with added foreign exchange earnings needed for the growth of the economy.

The Committee, as regards wage bargaining, has stressed that if, for imperative reasons of national economic interest, a government considers that the wage rates cannot be fixed freely by means of collective negotiations, these restrictions should be applied as an exceptional measure and only to the extent necessary, should not exceed a reasonable period, and should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect effectively the standard of living of the workers concerned, in particular those who are likely to be the most affected (see 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 260). However, the denial to a category of workers such as mentioned above, of the protections and rights defined in the Convention is not compatible with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee therefore must again call upon the Government to amend the 1980 Act so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 81st Session.]

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

The Committee notes the Government's report, and its communications of 6 November and 15 December 1990. It also notes the observations of the Bangladesh Workers' Federation (BWF) contained in communications dated 23 July and 8 October 1990, and of the Bangladesh Employers' Federation (BEF) contained in a communication dated 10 August 1990.

In its 1989 observation the Committee had raised a number of issues relating to:

- voluntary bargaining in the private sector;

- voluntary bargaining in the public sector; and

- protection against interference.

Voluntary bargaining in the private sector

The Committee had noted that the combined effect of sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 might be to impair the development of collective bargaining in small establishments because they appear to inhibit the establishment of "sectoral" or "industry" unions. Accordingly, it had asked the Government to provide any available information as to the development of free collective bargaining in such establishments.

In its report the Government states that sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the Ordinance do not inhibit the development of voluntary collective bargaining. This is evidenced by the fact that there are in existence a number of unions in small industry. The BEF expresses an essentially similar view.

The Committee takes note of these observations of the Government and the BEF, but remains of the view that the retention of section 7(2) in its present form, when read with sections 22 and 22A, may serve to inhibit the development of effective collective bargaining in the small business sector by inhibiting the development of industry or sectoral unions. Accordingly it must ask for the removal of the requirement in section 7(2) that, in order to be registered under the Ordinance, a trade union must have a membership of at least 30 per cent of the total number of workers in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed.

Voluntary bargaining in the public sector

For some years the Committee has been expressing its concerns in relation to the development of collective bargaining in the public sector, and in particular the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of Government-appointed Wages Commissions. It has pointed out to the Government that under Article 4 of the Convention it is for the Government to encourage the full development and utilisation of machinery for the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements, and has requested the Government to indicate how it intended to meet this obligation in respect of workers in public sector industries.

In its most recent report the Government simply refers to its previous reports whereby it had indicated that the Wages Commission system had been adopted: (i) to ensure uniformity in pay, etc. in the public sector; and (ii) in consequence of the fact that the Government as the employer in the public sector was likely to become the dominant partner in negotiations. The Commission as a third party could help to mitigate the effects of that dominance. The Government has also pointed out that in 1984 the Commission heard representations from representatives of the employers and workers, thereby giving its work a tripartite character.

In the light of this reply, the Committee can only reiterate that conformity with Article 4 requires that the Government take steps to encourage and promote the development and utilisation of machinery for the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements, and again draw the attention of the Government to the principles set out at paragraphs 298 to 319 of its 1983 General Survey.

Protection against interference

The Committee had asked the Government to review its legislation with a view to the adoption of an appropriate measure of protection against "interference" for purposes of Article 2 of the Convention. Both the Government and the BEF indicate that, in their opinion, sections 15 and 16 of the Ordinance provide adequate protection for these purposes. The Committee remains of the view that while these provisions appear to provide an appropriate measure of protection for purposes of Article 1 of the Convention, they do not satisfy the requirements of Article 2.

Denial of right to engage in collective bargaining for workers in export processing zones

In its observation on Convention No. 87 the Committee called upon the Government to amend section 11A of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act 1980 so as to enable workers in those zones to exercise the rights guaranteed by Articles 2 and 3 of that Convention. Section 11A also appears to deny workers in such zones the rights guaranteed by Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Convention No. 98. The Committee must, therefore, call upon the Government to amend the 1980 Act so as to bring it into conformity with this Convention.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report and the information that it supplied to the Conference Committee in 1987. It also notes the observations of the Bangladesh Employers' Association.

Voluntary bargaining in the private sector

Referring to its previous requests for information concerning the determination of wages and conditions of employment in the organised private sector, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government relating to the further development of bipartite collective bargaining in this sector. It also notes that in small establishments in the private sector, where workers are usually not organised, wages are fixed by a statutory Minimum Wage Board. It notes that employers, workers or the Government have the right to refer matters to this Board for determination. In this regard, the Committee points out that section 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, as amended, 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. According to sections 22 and 22A of the Ordinance, only unions which are registered in accordance with section 7 may become collective bargaining agents. The Committee is of the view that taken together these provisions may impair the development of voluntary collective bargaining in small establishments because they appear to inhibit the establishment of "sectoral" or "industry" unions. Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government to provide any available information as to the development of free collective bargaining in this sector.

Voluntary bargaining in the public sector

As indicated in previous comments, the Committee has continuing concerns about the development of collective bargaining in the organised public sector.

Since 1973 wage rates in this sector have been determined by government-appointed Wages Commissions. To date, there have been three such Commissions: in 1973, 1977 and 1984. According to the Government, all three Commissions have taken account of the opinions of all interested parties, including workers, in arriving at their determinations. However, the 1984 Commission was the first to have a formal tripartite structure. The Government states that it adopted this structure in 1984 because, as the employer in this sector, it could be expected to become the dominant partner in negotiations, and that accordingly it felt that it was necessary to provide some means of redressing any resultant imbalance.

The Committee considers that an ad hoc Commission which is established only at the initiative of the Government is not an appropriate means for the promotion of collective bargaining between workers and employers within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes that in a communication dated 29 July 1986, the Bangladesh Employers' Association intimated that it agreed with this assessment.

The Committee points out that, under Article 4, it is for the Government to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements. The Committee therefore requests the Government to state how it intends to meet this obligation in respect of workers in the public sector industries, where they should be able to negotiate freely in their own right with the employer, even though the employer is the State.

In making this request the Committee wishes to draw the attention of the Government to paragraphs 298 to 319 of its 1983 General Survey, which deal with machinery and procedures to facilitate bargaining and with the autonomy of the parties. In particular, it wishes to emphasise that the establishment of conciliation and arbitration procedures, on an ad hoc or a permanent basis, is not necessarily incompatible with the requirements of Article 4. However, all such procedures must be designed to facilitate bargaining between the two sides of industry and leave them free to reach their own settlements. This in turn requires that it should be for the parties to decide whether or not they wish to refer any matters in dispute to binding arbitration.

Protection against interference

The Committee has, on a number of occasions, observed that there is no adequate legislative protection against interference in the establishment, functioning or administration of workers' and employers' organisations as required by Article 2 of the Convention.

The Government has stated that it is willing, where necessary, to protect workers' organisations against any act of interference. Both the Government and the Bangladesh Employers' Association also draw attention to sections 15 and 16 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and point out that they do provide legislative protection with respect to interference in trade union activities.

The Committee notes that sections 15 and 16 of the Ordinance, taken together with section 53, do appear to provide an appropriate form of legislative protection against anti-union discrimination as envisaged by Article 1 of the Convention. However, the Committee is not satisfied that these provisions constitute an adequate response to the requirements of Article 2. Accordingly, it again requests the Government to review its legislation with a view to the adoption of an appropriate measure of protection against "interference" for purposes of Article 2. Such provision should seek to ensure that no employer or employer organisation may support any organisation of workers by financial or other means with a view to placing that organisation of workers under the control of the employer or employer organisation.