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

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 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.