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

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

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.