Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) - Bangladesh (Ratification: 1972)

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government on 15 September 2020 in response to a complaint pending under article 26 of the ILO Constitution. In light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020), the Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of this supplementary information received from the Government and the observations submitted by the social partners this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019.

The Committee notes that the mentioned complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution – alleging non-compliance by Bangladesh with this Convention, as well as the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) – is pending before the Governing Body. At its 340th Session (October–November 2020), the Governing Body, in view of the information communicated by the Government on the situation of freedom of association in the country and taking due note both of the Government’s commitment to continue to further improve the overall situation and to address the outstanding issues before the supervisory bodies: (i) requested the Government to develop, with the support of the Office and of the secretariat of the Workers’ and Employers’ groups, and in full consultation with the social partners concerned, a time-bound roadmap of actions with tangible outcomes to address all the outstanding issues mentioned in the complaint submitted under article 26 to the 108th Session of the International Labour Conference (2019); (ii) requested the Government to report on progress made in that regard to the Governing Body at its next session; and (iii) deferred the decision on further action in respect of the complaint until its 341st Session (March 2021).

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2019 and 15 September 2020, referring to matters addressed in this comment and alleging violent crackdown on strikes of garment workers, as well as continued retaliation against workers in connection with trade union activities and surveillance of trade unionists by the authorities.

The Committee notes the 2018 amendment of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 (BLA) and the adoption of the 2019 Export Processing Zones Labour Act (ELA).

Civil liberties. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed deep concern at the continued violence and intimidation of workers and urged the Government to provide information on the remaining specific allegations of violence and intimidation and to take all necessary measures to prevent such incidents in the future and ensure that, if they occur, they are properly investigated. The Committee further notes the Government’s general statement that: any case of grave allegations of violence and intimidation is investigated by the Department of Police or the Ministry of Home Affairs; preventive measures have been put in place, including awareness-raising, training and seminars for police personnel on human and labour rights; and 29 committees have been formed in eight labour-intensive districts, comprised of officials from the Department of Labour (DOL) and the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE), with the aim of ensuring peaceful and congenial working conditions in ready-made garment (RMG) factories through a number of concrete activities, such as resolving adverse situations in consultation with workers’ and employers’ representatives, publicizing the helpline introduced by the DIFE, reporting to the Ministry on the prevailing labour situation, etc. According to the supplementary information provided by the Government, there are also proposals to further increase the manpower of the DIFE with additional 1,698 positions, including senior positions.

The Committee notes, however, with concern the allegations of violent suppression by the police of several workers’ protests in 2018 and 2019 communicated by the ITUC, which denounce the use of rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannons, and the raiding of homes and destruction of property, as a result of which one worker was killed and more than a hundred injured, as well as the filing of false criminal complaints against hundreds of named unionists and thousands of unnamed persons. The Committee notes the Government’s detailed reply thereto and observes that no information was provided in respect of: (i) the alleged injuries to 20 rickshaw drivers during suppression of protests in April 2018; (ii) the alleged injuries to 25 jute mill workers after dispersal of two protests in Chittagong in August 2018; (iii) the alleged injuries to ten garment workers during a protest over non-payment of wages in Gazipur in September 2018; and (iv) the alleged repression of export-processing zones (EPZs) workers for attempting to exercise their limited rights permitted under the law. The Committee further notes with concern the 2020 ITUC allegations referring to: (i) violent crackdowns on strikes in September 2019 and July 2020, resulting in injuries to the workers; (ii) continued anti-union retaliation against garment sector workers, including blacklisting and pending criminal charges against hundreds of workers in connection with the December 2018 and January 2019 minimum wage protests; and (iii) increased pressure and state surveillance of garment federations by a newly-formed unit in the Department of National Security, which resulted in at least 175 trade union leaders and active members being blacklisted and 26 of them facing criminal and civil charges. In this regard, the Committee recalls once again that a truly free and independent trade union movement can only develop in a climate free from violence, pressure and threats of any kind against the leaders and members of such organizations. The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association has also been examining allegations of mass retaliation, criminalization, continued surveillance and intimidation of workers for trade union activities, with 19 criminal cases pending against more than 520 workers, in relation to the December 2018 and January 2019 minimum wage protests (see 392nd Report, October 2020, Case No. 3263, paragraphs 266–287). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the remaining specific allegations of violence and repression, as well as on the 2020 ITUC allegations, including to report on any investigations or prosecutions initiated and the results thereof.

The Committee encourages the Government to continue to provide all necessary training and awareness-raising to the police and other State agents to sensitize them about human and trade union rights with the aim of avoiding the use of excessive force and ensuring full respect for civil liberties during public assemblies and demonstrations, and requests the Government to take all necessary measures to prevent such incidents of violence and repression in the future and ensure that, if they occur, they are properly investigated.

Article 2 of the Convention. Right to organize. Registration of trade unions. In its previous comment, having observed that the number of rejected applications for registration remained high, the Committee requested the Government to continue to take all necessary measures to ensure that the registration process is a simple formality; to provide updated statistics as to the overall number of applications for registration received, accepted and rejected, and to clarify the status of the 509 applications submitted through the online system, which were not granted. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) have been incorporated in the 2018 amendment of the BLA as a new section and the concerned officials received training on the subject; (ii) after the adoption of the SOPs, the success rate in union registration has increased from 70 per cent in 2017 before the adoption of the SOPs to 81 per cent after their adoption, 82 per cent in 2018, 73 per cent in 2019 and 86 per cent in 2020 (the overall number of registered trade unions increased from 6,580 in December 2012 to 8,342 in August 2020, whereas the number of trade unions in the RMG sector grew from 132 to 945); (iii) although the rejection rate remains high it can be further reduced through training of concerned DOL officials and workers and, with support from the ILO, effort is being taken in this regard; (iv) if an application for registration is incomplete, the applicant may resubmit it after having complied with the Registrar’s observations or appeal to the Labour Court within 30 days; sometimes, instead of taking legal action, the applicants submit repeated applications which can be a cause for repeated rejection; (v) if an application is incomplete due to non-fulfilment of the requirements or lacking information and the concerned parties are not able to meet the objection raised by the Registrar within 15 days, the application will be filed without any action; (vi) there are no cases of arbitrary refusal of registration but applications can be rejected for not meeting one of the requirements set out in the BLA and the decision is communicated to the applicant by registered post; (vii) the time limit for the DOL to register a trade union was reduced from 60 to 55 days and the time limit to communicate any objection to the applicant and for the applicant to reply was reduced from 15 to 12 days (section 182(1), (2) and (4)); (viii) on the basis of 546 applications granted between March 2015 and April 2018, the average time for registration is 45 days; (ix) the provisions for online registration are not yet mandatory according to the BLA and workers require intensive training on online registration, for which a request has been submitted to the ILO, Dhaka; (x) due to the huge volume of documents that have to be submitted and considering that the online registration is not yet mandatory, the applicants and the service providers follow a combination of the manual and online systems; (xi) due to the upgrading of the software the public database on registration is currently unavailable for a limited period; (xii) once the upgrade is complete, the database will include information on applications for registration accepted and rejected, registration of sectoral and national federations and confederations, trade union-related court cases, conciliation, election of collective bargaining agents, anti-union discrimination and information on participation committees; (xiii) as for the 509 applications for registration referred to previously, they were processed manually; (xiv) trade union registration functions of the DOL have been decentralized and there are now 16 offices mandated to give registration (head office, six divisional labour offices and nine regional labour offices); and (xv) the Government has completed the upgrade of the Directorate of Labour to a Department of Labour, which has resulted in an increase of manpower from 712 to 921, a considerable increase in the DOL budget, and the creation of two additional divisional labour offices.

The Committee takes note of the detailed information provided by the Government and welcomes the increase of manpower of the DOL, as well as the decentralization of registration, which have the potential to increase the rapidity and efficiency of the registration process. The Committee observes however, that despite the Government’s efforts to simplify the process and ensure its transparency, registration seems to remain overly complicated, obliging the applicants to comply with stringent conditions and submit numerous documents, leading to the online registration not being fully functional. While duly noting the reported decrease in the rate of rejections of trade union registration applications (from 26 per cent reported in 2019 to 14 per cent reported in 2020), the Committee recalls that this number seems to refer only to the rejection of complete applications and does not include applications which the Registrar deems to be incomplete and which are then filed by the DOL without further action. The Committee also notes in this connection that, according to the ITUC, the registration process remains extremely burdensome, the SOPs fail to prevent arbitrary denial of applications, the Registrar routinely imposes conditions not based in the law or regulations and the Joint Director of Labour retains total discretionary power to refuse registration for false or fabricated reasons. In light of the above, while welcoming the decrease in the rate of rejections of trade union registration applications and noting the Government’s commitment to a further reduction in the number of rejected trade union applications, the Committee encourages the Government to continue to take all necessary measures to ensure that registration is, both in law and practice, a simple, objective, rapid and transparent process, which does not restrict the right of workers to establish organizations without previous authorization. It encourages the Government to explore, in cooperation with the social partners, concrete ways of simplifying the registration process to make it more user-friendly and accessible to all workers, as well as to provide, where necessary, training to workers on submitting complete and duly documented applications for trade union registration. It also encourages the Government to provide comprehensive training to divisional and regional officers who, following the decentralization of the registration process, are responsible for registration of trade unions, so as to ensure that they have sufficient knowledge and capacities to handle applications for registration rapidly and efficiently. While further noting the technical difficulties currently encountered, the Committee trusts that both the online registration system and the publicly available database will be fully operational in the near future so as to ensure total transparency of the registration process. Regretting that the Government fails to provide full statistics on registration, the Committee requests it once again to provide updated statistics on the overall number of applications submitted, granted, filed and rejected, disaggregated by year and sector.

Minimum membership requirements. In its previous comments, the Committee urged the Government to continue to take the necessary measures to review sections 179(2) and 179(5) of the BLA without delay, in consultation with the social partners, with a view to truly reducing the minimum membership requirement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) through the 2018 BLA amendment, the minimum membership requirement to form a trade union and maintain its registration has been reduced from 30 to 20 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment in which a union is formed; (ii) since this reduction, a total of 216 trade unions have been registered; (iii) section 179(5) of the BLA which limits the number of trade unions in an establishment or group of establishments to a maximum of three might require some time to amend; and (iv) both issues may be considered at the next revision of the BLA. While welcoming the reduction in the minimum membership requirement, the Committee observes that the 20 per cent threshold is still likely to be excessive, especially in large enterprises, and notes that, according to the ITUC, it does in practice constitute a hurdle for the workforce to organize in large companies. The Committee also observes that a trade union formed in a group of establishments (defined as more than one establishment in a particular area carrying out the same or identical industry) can only be registered if it has as members not less than 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in all establishments, an excessive requirement that unduly restricts the right of workers to establish sectoral or industry unions. The Committee requests the Government to clarify whether, in handling applications for registration, the reduced minimum membership requirement is being applied even in the absence of adjustments to the Bangladesh Labour Rules (BLR) and, should this not be the case, to take the necessary steps without delay to apply these amendments so as to facilitate trade union registration and to indicate the results once it has been applied. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether the reduced minimum membership requirement has had any impact on the overall number of trade union registrations submitted and granted, especially in large enterprises. Noting the Government’s openness to further reducing the threshold, the Committee expects the Government to engage in meaningful discussions with the social partners in order to: continue to review the BLA with the aim of reducing the minimum membership requirements to a reasonable level, at least for large enterprises and trade unions in a group of establishments; amend section 179(5); and repeal section 190(f) that allows for cancellation of a trade union if its membership falls below the minimum membership requirement.

With regard to the application of the BLA to workers in the agricultural sector, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the BLA is applicable to workers engaged in commercial agricultural farms where at least five workers are employed – they can participate in trade union activities and collective bargaining – and that small agricultural farms where less than five workers are employed are characterized by low productivity and subsistence farming and generally do not express any interest in trade union activities. While noting the Government’s explanation, the Committee recalls that workers in small farms should also be allowed to form or at least join existing trade unions, even if in practice this may not result in a common occurrence. The Committee had also previously requested the Government to clarify, under this Convention and the Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (No. 11), whether Rule 167(4) of the BLR establishes a 400 minimum membership requirement to form an agricultural trade union and to provide information on its effects in practice and its impact on the right of agricultural workers to form trade union organizations of their own choosing. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that workers in mechanized farms run for commercial purposes may organize according to the existing provisions of the BLA (the Government provides statistics on the number of existing trade unions in various agricultural sectors) and workers in family-based subsistence farms characterized by few workers can form groups of establishment under Rule 167(4). The Government further explains that Rule 167(4) erroneously referred to the requirement of 400 workers to form a trade union but that this requirement has been redefined through a gazette notification in January 2017. The Rule thus provides an opportunity for workers engaged in field crop production to form a group of establishments in every subdistrict or district, if there are at least five workers in each farm and a minimum of 400 workers unite (there are 18 such entities registered with the Department of Labour). According to the Government, since 77 per cent of the population lives in villages and agriculture represents the main source of livelihood, this membership requirement is not too high. Taking due note of the Government’s clarification but observing that the requirement of 400 workers to form a group of establishments in one district might still be excessive, especially considering that, in order to reach the 400 threshold, a large number of small family farms would need to unite, the Committee requests the Government to endeavour to reduce this requirement, in consultation with the social partners, to a reasonable level so as not to unduly restrict the right to organize of agricultural workers.

Articles 2 and 3. Right to organize, elect officers and carry out activities freely. Bangladesh Labour Act. In its previous comments, the Committee had urged the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to continue to review and amend a number of provisions of the BLA in order to ensure that any restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of association are in conformity with the Convention. The Committee notes the detailed information provided on tripartite consultations held before the 2018 BLA amendment, as well as the Government’s indication that reform in the labour sector has been a part of national political commitment. The Committee notes with satisfaction the following modifications introduced in the BLA: addition of section 182(7) instructing the Government to adopt SOPs for the processing of applications for registration of trade unions; repeal of section 184(2)–(4) imposing excessive restrictions on organizing in civil aviation; repeal of section 190(d) allowing cancellation of a trade union due to violation of any of the basic provisions of its constitution; repeal of section 202(22) providing for automatic cancellation of a union if, in an election for determination of collective bargaining agent, it obtains less than 10 per cent of the total votes cast; addition of section 205(12) stating that there is no requirement to form a participation committee in an establishment where there is a trade union; and addition of section 348(A) which provides for the establishment of a Tripartite Consultative Council to provide advice to the Government on matters related to law, policy and labour issues.

The Committee welcomes the clarification that workers in the informal sector do not need to provide identity cards issued by an establishment when unions apply for registration but can also use a national identity card or birth registration certificate (section 178(2)(a)(iii)), as well as the replacement of the obligation to obtain approval from the Government by an obligation to inform the Government of any funds received from any national or international source, except union dues (section 179(1)(d)). The Committee further welcomes the reduction of the requirement of support of two thirds of trade union members to call a strike to 51 per cent (section 211(1)). The Committee also notes that the 2018 amendments introduced section 196(4) providing for the adoption of SOPs for investigating unfair labour practices on the part of the workers and reduced by half the maximum prison sentence imposable on workers for a series of violations – unfair labour practices, instigation and participation in an illegal strike or a go-slow, participation in activities of unregistered trade unions and dual trade union membership (sections 291(2)–(3), 294–296, 299 and 300). However, the Committee observes that the sanctions still include imprisonment for activities that do not justify the severity of the sanction and recalls that it has been requesting the Government to eliminate such penalties from the BLA and to let the penal system address any possible criminal acts.

Taking due note of the above amendments introduced to improve compliance with the Convention, the Committee expects them to be applied in practice without delay so as to enhance the right to organize of workers and employers and requests the Government to indicate whether they are fully in force and applied or whether their application is dependent upon the issuance of a revised BLR.

The Committee regrets that many other additional changes it has been requesting for a number of years have either not been addressed or have been addressed only partially, including some that were previously announced by the Government for amendment. In this regard, the Committee emphasizes once again the need to further review the BLA to ensure its conformity with the Convention regarding the following matters: (i) scope of the law – restrictions on numerous sectors and workers remain, including, among others, Government workers, university teachers and domestic workers (sections 1(4), 2(49) and (65) and 175); (ii) one remaining restriction on organizing in civil aviation (section 184(1) – the provision should clarify that trade unions in civil aviation can be formed irrespective of whether they wish to affiliate with international federations or not); (iii) restrictions on organizing in groups of establishments (sections 179(5) and 183(1)); (iv) restrictions on trade union membership (sections 2(65), 175, 193 and 300); (v) interference in trade union activity, including cancellation of registration for reasons that do not justify the severity of the act (sections 192, 196(2)(b) read in conjunction with 190(1)(c), (e) and (g), 229, 291(2)–(3) and 299); (vi) interference in trade union elections (section 180(1)(a) read in conjunction with section 196(2)(d), and sections 180(b) and 317(4)(d)); (vii) interference in the right to draw up constitutions freely by providing overly detailed instructions (sections 179(1) and 188 (in addition, there seems to be a discrepancy in that section 188 gives the DOL the power to register and, under certain circumstances, refuse to register any amendments to the constitution of a trade union and its Executive Council whereas Rule 174 of the BLR only refers to notification of such changes to the DOL who will issue a new certificate)); (viii) excessive restrictions on the right to strike (sections 211(3)–(4) and (8) and 227(c)) accompanied by severe penalties (sections 196(2)(e), 291(2)–(3) and 294–296); and (ix) excessive preferential rights for collective bargaining agents (sections 202(24)(b), (c) and (e) and 204 (while noting the minor amendments to sections 202 and 204, the Committee notes that they do not address its concerns in that they limit the scope of action of trade unions other than the collective bargaining agents). Furthermore, the Committee previously requested the Government, under Convention No. 11, to indicate whether workers in small farms consisting of less than five workers can, in law and practice, group together with other workers to form a trade union or affiliate to existing workers’ organizations (section 1(4)(n) and (p) of the BLA).

In light of the numerous provisions mentioned above which still need to be amended to bring the BLA fully in line with the Convention, the Committee encourages the Government to engage rapidly with the Tripartite Consultative Council (TCC) referred to in section 348(A) so as to pursue the legislative review of the BLA. It requests the Government to provide information on the composition, mandate and functioning in practice of the TCC and trusts that, in the next revision of the BLA, these comments will be duly taken into account to ensure that its provisions are in full conformity with the Convention.

Bangladesh Labour Rules. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to review a number of BLR provisions to bring them in line with the Convention and trusted that during the revision process its comments would be duly taken into account. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, following the amendment of the BLA, revision of the BLR is a priority action for the Government and a tripartite committee, composed of six representatives of the Government and three representatives of workers and employers each, has already been formed for this purpose and has met on three occasions. Welcoming this information, the Committee emphasizes the need to review the BLR to align it with the 2018 amendments of the BLA, as well as regarding the following matters previously raised: (i) Rule 2(g) and (j) contains a broad definition of administrative and supervisory officers who are excluded from the definition of workers under the BLA and thus from the right to organize; (ii) Rule 85, Schedule IV, sub-rule 1(h) prohibits members of the Safety Committee from initiating or participating in an industrial dispute; Rule 169(4) limits eligibility to a trade union executive committee to permanent workers, which may adversely affect the right of workers’ organizations to elect their officers freely; (iii) Rule 188 provides for employer participation in the formation of election committees which conduct the election of worker representatives to participation committees in the absence of a union – this, according to the ITUC, could lead to management domination of participation and safety committees; the Government informs in this respect that election of worker representatives to participation committees without representation of employers is being piloted in two factories; (iv) Rule 190 prohibits certain categories of workers from voting for worker representatives to participation committees; (v) Rule 202 contains broad restrictions on actions taken by trade unions and participation committees; (vi) Rule 204, which restrictively determines that only subscription-paying workers can vote in a ballot to issue a strike, is not in line with section 211(1) of the BLA which refers to union members; (vii) Rule 350 provides for excessively broad powers of inspection of the Director of Labour; and (viii) the BLR lacks provisions providing appropriate procedures and remedies for unfair labour practice complaints. The Committee further notes, from the supplementary information provided by the Government, that the revision of the BLR, initially expected to be completed by September 2020, will be delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While taking note of the challenging context of the current pandemic, the Committee expects the revision process to be concluded without delay so as to ensure that the 2018 BLA amendments introduced to improve compliance with the Convention are reflected in the BLR and its application, and to address other pending issues, as referred to above.

Right to organize in EPZs. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to continue to revise the draft EPZ Labour Act, 2016 and 2017 in consultation with the social partners, so as to provide equal rights of freedom of association to all workers and bring the EPZs within the purview of the Ministry of Labour and the Labour Inspectorate. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the draft EPZ Labour Act was formulated after a pragmatic and neutral analysis of the socio-economic conditions of the country and went through a long process of extensive and inclusive consultations and dialogue with all levels of stakeholders, including the ILO. The Government provides detailed information on the consultations that have taken place and informs that the Bangladesh ELA, adopted in February 2019, upholds the rights and privileges of the workers and includes comprehensive changes and measurable progress. The Committee notes with satisfaction the following amendments made, which address its previous observations: simplification of the formation and registration of workers’ welfare associations (WWAs) – the institutional form given to workers’ organizations in EPZs – through amendment of a number of provisions of the draft EPZ Labour Act, 2016 and repeal of section 96 establishing an excessive referendum requirement to constitute a WWA; section 16 of the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Association and Industrial Relations Act, 2010 (EWWAIRA) prohibiting the establishment of a WWA in a new industrial unit for three months has not been included in the ELA; repeal of section 98 of the draft EPZ Labour Act prohibiting the holding of a new referendum to form a WWA during one year after a failed one; repeal of section 101 authorizing the Zone Authority to form a committee to draft a WWA constitution and to approve it; repeal of section 116 allowing deregistration of a WWA for a number of reasons, including at the request of 30 per cent of eligible workers even if they are not members of the association and prohibiting the establishment of a new association within one year after such deregistration; amendment of section 103(2) to remove the mandatory opening of election of Executive Council members to all workers and not only WWA members; repeal of section 103(5) of the draft EPZ Labour Act, 2017 restricting the right to elect and be elected to the Executive Council to workers who have worked at the enterprise for a specific period; and reduction of the requirement to issue a strike notice from three quarters of members of the Executive Council to two-thirds (section 127(2) of the ELA).

The Committee further welcomes the reduction in the minimum membership requirement to form WWAs but observes that the new requirement of 20 per cent (sections 94(2) and 97(5)) may still be excessive, especially in large enterprises, and considering that only permanent workers may apply to form a WWA. While also welcoming the addition of a provision allowing for the formation of higher-level organizations within a Zone (sections 2(50) and 113), the Committee observes that the conditions to form a federation are excessively strict – more than 50 per cent of WWAs in one Zone must agree to establish a federation – and that a WWA federation cannot affiliate or associate in any manner with another federation in another Zone or beyond the Zone (section 113(3)). In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the new amendments, in particular the reduced minimum membership requirement to form WWAs and the possibility to create federations, including to indicate the practical implications of these amendments on the number of applications for WWAs and WWA federations submitted and registered. The Committee trusts that, in order to achieve full compliance with the Convention, the Government will continue, in consultation with the social partners concerned, to endeavour to further reduce, to a reasonable level, the minimum membership requirements to form a WWA, especially in large establishments, as well as federations and to allow WWAs and federations to associate with other entities in the same Zone and outside the Zone in which they were established, including with non-EPZ workers’ organizations at different levels.

While taking due note of the above amendments and of the Government’s efforts to address some of its previous observations, the Committee deeply regrets that most of the changes it requested have not been addressed despite the Government’s assurance that it took the Committee’s observations into the highest consideration. The Committee, therefore, emphasizes once again the need to further review the ELA to ensure its conformity with the Convention regarding the following matters: (i) scope of the law – specific categories of workers continue to be excluded from the law (workers in supervisory and managerial positions – sections 2(48)) or from Chapter IX dealing with WWAs (members of the watch and ward or security staff, drivers, confidential assistants, cipher assistants, casual workers, workers employed by kitchen or food preparation contractors and workers employed in clerical posts (section 93), as well as workers in managerial positions (section 115(2)); (ii) the imposition of association monopoly at enterprise and industrial unit levels (sections 94(6), 97(5) paragraph 2, 100 and 101); (iii) detailed requirements as to the content of a WWA’s constitution which go beyond formal and may thus hinder the free establishment of WWAs and constitute interference in the right to draw up constitutions freely (section 96(2)(e) and (o)); (iv) limitative definition of the functions of WWA members despite the deletion of the word “mainly” from section 102(3); (v) prohibition to hold an election to the Executive Council during a period of six months (reduced from one year), if a previous election was ineffective in that less than half of the permanent workers of the enterprise cast a vote (section 103(2)–(3)); (vi) prohibition to function without registration and to collect funds for an unregistered association (section 111); (vii) interference in internal affairs by prohibiting expulsion of certain workers from a WWA (section 147); (viii) broad powers and interference of the Zone Authority in internal WWA affairs by approving funds from an outside source (section 96(3)), approving any amendment in a WWA constitution and Executive Council (section 99), arranging elections to the Executive Council of WWAs (section 103(1)) and approving it (section 104), ruling on the legitimacy of a transfer or termination of a WWA representative (section 121), determining the legitimacy of any WWA and its capacity to act as a collective bargaining agent (section 180(c)) and monitoring any WWA elections (section 191); (ix) interference by the authorities in internal affairs by allowing supervision of the elections to the WWA Executive Council by the Executive Director (Labour Relations) and the Inspector-General (sections 167(2)(b) and 169(2)(e)); (x) restrictions imposed on the ability to vote and on the eligibility of workers to the Executive Council (sections 103(2) and (4) and 107); (xi) legislative determination of the tenure of the Executive Council (section 105); (xii) broad definition of unfair labour practices, which also include persuasion of a worker to join a WWA during working hours or commencement of an illegal strike, and imposition of penal sanctions for their violation (sections 116(2)(a) and (f), 151(2)–(3) and 155–156); (xiii) power of the Conciliator appointed by the Zone Authority to determine the validity of a strike notice, without which a lawful strike cannot take place (section 128(2) read in conjunction with section 145(a)); (xiv) possibility to prohibit strike or lockout after 30 days or at any time if the Executive Chairman is satisfied that the continuance of the strike or lockout causes serious harm to productivity in the Zone or is prejudicial to public interest or national economy (section 131(3)–(4)); (xv) possibility of unilateral referral of a dispute to the EPZ Labour Court which could result in compulsory arbitration (sections 131(3)–(5) and 132, read in conjunction with section 144(1)); (xvi) prohibition of strike or lockout for three years in a newly established enterprise and imposition of obligatory arbitration (section 131(9)); (xvii) possibility of hiring temporary workers during a legal strike in cases where the Executive Chairman of the Zone Authority is satisfied that complete cessation of work is likely to risk causing serious damage to the machinery or installation of the industry (section 115(1)(g)); (xviii) excessive penalties, including imprisonment, for illegal strikes (sections 155 and 156); (xix) prohibition to engage in activities which are not described in the constitution as objectives of the association (section 178(1)); (xx) prohibition to maintain any linkage with any political party or organization affiliated to a political party or non-governmental organization, as well as possible cancellation of such association and prohibition to form a WWA within one year after such cancellation (section 178(2)–(3)); (xxi) cancellation of a WWA registration on grounds which do not appear to justify the severity of the sanction (sections 109(b)–(h), 178(3)); (xxii) limitation of WWA activities to the territorial limits of the enterprise thus banning any engagement with actors outside the enterprise, including for training or communication (section 102(2)) and, subject to the right to form federations under section 113, prohibition to associate or affiliate with another WWA in the same Zone, another Zone or beyond the Zone, including non-EPZ workers’ organizations at all levels (section 102(4)); (xxiii) interference in internal affairs of a WWA federation – legislative determination of the duration of a federation (four years) and determination of the procedure of election and other matters by the Zone Authority (section 113); (xxiv) power of the Government to exempt any owner, group of owners, enterprise or group of enterprises, worker or group of workers from any provision of the Act making the rule of law a discretionary right (section 184); (xxv) excessive requirements to form an association of employers (section 114(1)); (xxvi) prohibition of an employer association to associate or affiliate in any manner with another association beyond the Zone (section 114(2)); (xxvii) excessive powers of interference in employers’ associations’ affairs (section 114(3)); and (xxviii) the possibility for the Zone Authority, with the approval of the Government, to establish regulations (section 204) – these could further restrain the right of workers and their organizations to carry out legitimate trade union activities without interference. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication in its supplementary report that a committee will be formed to address the issue of any amendments to the ELA and that the necessary steps will be taken pursuant to its recommendations. The Government also informs that the Zone Authority is open to valuable suggestions, advice and technical assistance from the ILO so as to continue to improve its training programmes and to uplift workers’ rights in EPZs. Taking due note of the fact that the ELA was adopted in February 2019 and of the Government’s commitment to further improve and reform the existing provisions, but observing that an exceptionally large number of provisions still need to be repealed or substantially amended to ensure its conformity with the Convention, the Committee expects that discussion on the revision of the ELA will continue on a more urgent basis in the near future, in consultation with the social partners, so as to address the issues highlighted above (and others that may arise during discussion) in a meaningful manner and provide EPZ workers with all the rights guaranteed in the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to report in detail on progress in this regard.

The Committee further notes with interest the Government’s indication that the inspection and administration system of EPZs have been brought in line with the BLA (Chapter XIV of the ELA), that section 168 allows the Chief Inspector and other inspectors appointed under the BLA to undertake inspections of EPZs and that several joint inspections have already taken place. The Committee observes, however, that for the DIFE to inspect EPZ establishments, an approval of the Executive Chairman is required and the Chairman retains ultimate supervision of labour standards in EPZs (sections 168(1) and 180(g)), which may hinder the independent nature and proper functioning of labour inspection. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that consultations with the workers, investors and relevant stakeholders are ongoing to analyse how best the DIFE may be allied with the existing inspection system in EPZs, to develop an integrated inspection framework and to define the role of the DIFE in the factories in EPZs. Referring to its more detailed comments on this point made under Convention No. 81, the Committee encourages the Government to take steps to elaborate the aforementioned inspection framework in order to clarify the powers of the DIFE and the Zone Authority, as well as the functioning in practice of joint inspections or inspections conducted by the Labour Inspectorate of EPZ establishments. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to take further steps to ensure unrestricted access and jurisdiction over labour inspection activities in EPZs for DIFE inspectors.

Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication, in its supplementary report, that the situation of the RMG sector, which is dependent on export, is critical as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government also informs that in order to uphold labour rights, the Ministry of Labour and Employment elaborated a road map in consultation with the tripartite partners, but that due to the current pandemic, many of its initiatives destined to be implemented have now been delayed or slowed down, including the labour reform. While taking due note of the impact of the current COVID-19 pandemic on the economy of the country, in particular in the RMG sector, as well as on the Government’s efforts to pursue the labour reform, the Committee once again recalls the critical importance which it gives to freedom of association as a fundamental human and enabling right. In view of the Government’s reiterated commitment to labour reform and to ensuring protection of the rights of workers, the Committee expresses its firm hope that significant progress will be made in the very near future to bring both the legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention. The Committee reminds the Government that it can avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office should it so desire in order to assist the national tripartite dialogue in determining further areas for progress.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2022.]