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

Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Bangladesh (Ratification: 1972)

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.