Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2004, publiée 93ème session CIT (2005)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the adoption of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO) of 2002, which came to replace the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969. The Committee also notes the discussions in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2003. It further notes the comments made by the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions (APFTU) in a communication dated 9 July 2003 concerning the application of the Convention. In addition, the Committee notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Cases Nos. 2229 (March 2003) and 2242 (November 2003).

With respect to its previous comments, the Committee notes the following:

-  Denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention in export processing zones (EPZ). The Committee notes the Government’s statement at the Conference Committee of the Application of Standards to the effect that this question was under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Industries, which had exempted the EPZ from the application of labour laws. However, according to the Government, the Ministry of Labour had taken up the matter with the Ministry of Industries with a view to withdrawing the exemption and an extensive dialogue was under way. The Committee once again requests the Government to ensure that EPZ workers are very soon provided with all the rights and guarantees enshrined in the Convention.

-  Denial of the rights guaranteed by the Convention to other categories of workers. The Committee had previously noted that other categories of workers were also deprived of the rights provided for in the Convention (public servants of grade 16 or above, public servants in forestry, railways, hospital workers, postal service employees and civil aviation employees). The Committee notes that the new IRO excludes from its scope workers employed in the following establishments or industries: installations or services exclusively connected with the armed forces of Pakistan, including Ministry of Defence railway lines; Pakistan Security Printing Corporation, or the Security Papers Limited or Pakistan Mint; establishments or institutions maintained for the treatment or care of sick, infirm, destitute and mentally unfit persons excluding those run on a commercial basis; institutions established for payment of employees’ old-age pensions or for workers’ welfare; and members of the watch and ward, security or fire service staff of an oil refinery or of an establishment engaged in the production, transmission or distribution of natural gas or liquefied petroleum products or of a seaport or an airport (section 1(4)) and persons who are employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity (section 2(xxx), as well as workers of charitable organizations (section 2(xvii)). The Committee further notes the APFTU’s statement to the effect that the Government has also imposed restrictions on rights of workers employed in Karachi Electric Supply Company and in the agricultural sector. Moreover, the Committee understands that Chief Executive’s Order No. 6 abolished trade union rights of the workers in Pakistan International Airlines and suspended all the existing collective agreements. The Committee recalls that only the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State can be excluded from the guarantees of the Convention. The Committee also recalls that civilians working in military installations or in the service of the army or police should enjoy the rights provided for in the Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to take measures in order to bring the legislation in conformity with the Convention.

-  Sanctions for trade union activities. As concerns section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962, according to which imprisonment and/or fines are imposed in case of the use of bank facilities (telephone, etc.) or of carrying on trade union activities during office hours, the Committee notes the Government’s statement at the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards to the effect that a review of this provision was under way. The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will repeal this section in the near future.

-  Lack of sufficient legislative protection for workers dismissed for their trade union membership or activities (section 25-A of the IRO of 1969). The Committee notes that the new IRO provides for a possibility of reinstatement or compensation in the case of the termination of services of a workman which is held to be wrongful and that during an industrial dispute, the National Industrial Relations Commission can grant interim relief to workers who have been dismissed, discharged, removed from employment, transferred or injured in respect of his or her employment due to trade union activities. The Committee notes the APFTU’s statement, according to which the newly imposed section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act has debarred workers engaged in autonomous bodies and corporations such as WAPDA, railway, telecommunication, gas, banks, PASSCO, etc. from seeking redress for their grievances from the Labour Courts, Labour Appellate Tribunals and National Industrial Relations Commission in the case of unfair labour practices committed by the employer. The Committee notes from the Government’s statement at the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards that, in light of the tripartite agreement on the new labour policy, the issues related to provision 2-A were being addressed and that a proposal had been made by the Ministry to delete or amend it in order to enable public sector workers to seek remedy under labour legislation. The Government further stated that it was committed to finding a solution reflecting the demands of all stakeholders and the Committee’s concerns. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the measures taken in order to ensure that appropriate means of redress are available to these workers.

-  Denial of free collective bargaining in the public banking and financial sectors, previously contained in sections 38-A to 38-I of the IRO. The Committee notes that those sections are not reproduced in the new IRO.

As concerns the IRO of 2002, the Committee would like to point out the following discrepancies with Article 4 of the Convention:

-  The Committee notes that it results from section 20 that if the trade union, which is the only trade union at the enterprise, does not have at least one-third of employees as its members, no collective bargaining is possible at a given establishment. The Committee recalls in this respect 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 its legislation so as to bring it into conformity with Article 4 of the Convention.

-  The Committee also notes that according to section 20(11), no application for determination of the collective bargaining agent at the same establishment may be made for a period of three years once a registered trade union has been certified as collective bargaining agent. In this respect, the Committee recalls that where the most representative union which, enjoying exclusive bargaining rights, seems to have lost its majority, it should be possible to another union to make appropriate representations to the competent authority and to the employer regarding the recognition of this union for collective bargaining purposes. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures so as to amend the IRO accordingly and keep it informed in this respect.

-  The Committee further notes that according to section 54, the National Industrial Commission may determine or modify a collective bargaining unit on an application made by a workers’ organization or reference made by the Federal Government. The Committee recalls in this respect that the choice of collective bargaining unit should normally be made by the partners themselves, since they are in the best position to decide the most appropriate bargaining level, and requests the Government to amend its legislation accordingly.

A request on certain other points is being addressed directly to the Government.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.