Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) - Bahrain (Ratification: 2000)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2018, Publication: 107th ILC session (2018)



A Government representative provided information concerning the measures taken by the Government to comply with the conclusions adopted by the Committee at the 106th Session of the International Labour Conference (June 2017). The Government had taken the following measures: (i) reported on the measures taken to implement the commitments contained in the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014 in connection with the reinstatement of the dismissed workers following the events of February and March 2011, providing detailed information on all the cases settled and agreed upon with the social partners, notably in relation to the list of the 165 dismissed workers that was annexed to the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014; (ii) provided a report dated 31 August 2017 on the measures taken to implement the Convention; and (iii) accepted the ILO’s technical support via a direct contacts mission, in accordance with the letter addressed to the Director-General on 15 April 2018. In reply to the Committee of Experts’ comments, the Government highlighted the following points. First, regarding the measures taken to implement the commitments contained in the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014, 98 per cent of all cases involving the dismissal of workers following the 2011 events had been settled. The workers had returned to their work whether in the private or public sector preserving their employment-related rights and benefits, including retirement benefits. Moreover, cooperation with relevant stakeholders was continuing with a view to finalizing the settlement of all 165 cases mentioned in the list annexed to the Agreement. The Government’s efforts concurred with the National Tripartite Committee’s measures to reintegrate these workers either into their previous positions, or to provide them with financial compensation, or even place them in alternative employments with the same pay and benefits. Cooperation between the relevant stakeholders was ongoing to resolve the few remaining cases, and the Ministry of Labour and Social Development remained open to finding appropriate solutions for the workers concerned.

Second, regarding the measures taken to ensure that the legislation covered all recognized prohibited grounds of discrimination, the speaker indicated that the conclusions adopted by the Committee in 2017 had been taken on board, and a comprehensive review of national legislation had been launched in order to consider the amendments necessary to prohibit and criminalize discrimination in labour legislation in the private sector. In this regard, the Council of Ministers had already approved an amendment to the Labour Law for the Private Sector on this matter, and information on any further developments would be provided to the Office. Third, regarding the measures taken to protect migrant workers, this category of workers benefited from mechanisms to submit labour complaints or formulate litigation and appeals against administrative and judicial decisions. Furthermore, a migrant worker could transfer to another employer under the conditions set out in the legislation, namely after one year of employment with the current employer, with the obligation to provide at least three months’ advance notice and under the condition that the worker hold legal residence in the country. Migrant workers who had been subjected to abusive practices by their current employer, such as non-payment of wages or deprivation of fundamental rights set forth in the law, were allowed to change their employer without complying with the conditions and legal periods set forth above. One important practical step had also been taken through the flexible work permit scheme that aimed to regularize the situation of migrant workers in irregular situations. Under this scheme, a migrant worker who had a flexible work permit and had signed a formal employment contract, would be covered by the national laws and regulations of the country governing the employment relationship. Referring to the Committee of Experts’ requests for information on the measures taken to raise awareness among migrant workers, the speaker underlined that the national legislation concerning residency had been made available and disseminated in several languages as part of an awareness-raising campaign. Raising awareness of migrant workers’ rights was not only the responsibility of the Government, but also the responsibility of the embassies of labour-supplying countries, trade unions and civil society organizations of foreign communities, such as cultural and social clubs. This was the purpose of the “amnesty” periods that had been organized by the Government from 2006 to date, which sought to correct the situation of more than 100,000 migrant workers in irregular situations without imposing any penalties on them or charging them administrative fees. Fourth, regarding the measures taken to ensure equality of opportunity and treatment between women and men in employment and occupation, women’s participation in the labour market had increased to around 39 per cent in all sectors of the economy, and the country was considered to be the “best climber in the world on the sub-index of participation and economic opportunities” for women according to the World Economic Forum’s 2015 report. A report would be sent in the near future on this topic. Fifth, regarding the measures taken to ensure that sexual harassment was prohibited under the labour legislation, it would be appropriate to seek cooperation with the ILO in order to benefit from its expertise on this topic and enable the development of national legislation in line with international labour standards and other national practices.

The Employer members recalled that Bahrain had ratified this fundamental Convention in 1977. The application of the Convention by Bahrain had been the subject of observations by the Committee of Experts in 2012, 2016 and 2017 and had been discussed by the Committee on the Application of Standards for the first time in 2017. The observations of the Committee of Experts focused on the following areas: (i) legislative coverage of all recognized prohibited grounds of discrimination and the application of legislation to all workers; (ii) promotion of the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women in employment and occupation; and (iii) prohibition of sexual harassment in law and in practice. Taking into account the 2017 conclusions adopted by the Committee on the Application of Standards, the information provided by the Government and its willingness to examine, with ILO support, the possibility of formulating a comprehensive definition of discrimination in compliance with the Convention, the Employer members encouraged the Government to ensure that: (i) national legislation covered all recognized prohibited grounds of discrimination as set out in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention; (ii) national legislation addressed discrimination in both its direct and indirect forms and discrimination in employment and occupation was prohibited in law and in practice; and (iii) all workers were covered by the protection of anti-discrimination legislation in both the private sector and civil service. In addition, taking into account the Government’s indication that it had taken steps to promote the principle of equality of opportunity between men and women in employment and occupation and appreciating the Government’s commitment to provide more statistical information, the Employer members requested the Government to: (i) provide information on the steps taken regarding the position of women in the labour market; and (ii) continue to provide statistical information on the participation of men and women in the labour market, disaggregated by sector, occupational category and position in both the public and private sectors, and the numbers of women benefiting from vocational training.

With regard to the comments of the Committee of Experts relating to section 31 of the Labour Law in the Private Sector, which prohibited night work and work in certain sectors and occupations for women, and noting the Government’s previous explanation that such measures aimed to protect women from work that was against their dignity, capacities and constitution, as well as the Government’s statement before the Committee that women received privileges such as maternity leave and protection against work-related risks, the Employer members expressed concern at the existence of national legislation based on stereotypes regarding women’s professional abilities and role in society, which was in contravention of the principle of equality of opportunity between men and women in employment and occupation set out in the Convention. In light of the Government’s stated willingness to consider legislative revision, the Employer members encouraged the Government to take the above into account when reviewing the so-called “protective” legislation so as to ensure respect of this principle, and to provide information to the Committee of Experts on all measures taken in this regard. Furthermore, welcoming the Government’s condemnation of sexual harassment at the workplace and its commitment to cooperate with the ILO, the Employer members called on the Government to ensure that sexual harassment was adequately prohibited in national legislation and to provide clarification as to existing complaint procedures in this regard. In conclusion, they welcomed the Government’s constructive approach to the issue and encouraged it to continue on this path.

The Worker members expressed regret that the conclusions adopted by the Committee at its previous session had been given only partial effect. The direct contacts mission suggested by the Government aimed to assist in implementing these conclusions. However, the fact that the mission had been accepted belatedly (April 2018) meant that the Office had not yet been able to organize it, thus delaying the implementation process. In its observations, the Committee of Experts referred to five major problems with the application of the Convention. First, in respect of the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014 concluded between the Government, the General Federation of Bahrain Trade Unions (GFBTU) and the Bahrain Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI) with a view to settling the cases of suspensions, dismissals and sanctions imposed on persons who had participated in political demonstrations in February 2011, the Government had provided the Committee of Experts with a report on the measures taken to fulfil those Agreements and had concluded that a solution had been found for almost all of the persons concerned. However, 64 of these cases were still pending because the employers had refused to reinstate those workers. Furthermore, the financial compensation for most of the reinstated workers had not yet been paid by the respective employers, despite the terms of the Tripartite Agreements. Even where workers had been reinstated, discrimination had regrettably been noted: the workers of an aluminium company had had to sign an agreement renouncing their rights, wages, and benefits or annual leave for the period they had been dismissed; 184 workers of an enterprise in the energy sector had not been paid for the period of dismissal; others had received a significant pay cut following their reinstatement, had been assigned to different posts from those they occupied prior to dismissal, or had been demoted. It was clear that the Tripartite Agreements were far from having been fully applied.

Second, Bahraini legislation was still not in conformity with the Convention as, on the one hand, it did not include all the grounds of discrimination mentioned therein and, on the other, it did not apply to domestic workers, security guards, nannies, drivers and cooks. As the conclusions adopted by the Committee in this regard had not been implemented, the expected amendments should be more explicitly defined: (a) the scope of application of the Labour Law of the Private Sector of 2012 (Law No. 36/2012) should be extended to domestic workers and persons regarded as such, including agricultural workers, security house-guards, nannies, drivers and cooks; (b) sections 39 (wage discrimination) and 104 (discriminatory termination) should explicitly cover the grounds of discrimination listed in the Convention. It was particularly important to incorporate these amendments. Acts of discrimination had occurred during the reinstatement of trade union leaders and workers following the events of 2011, in breach of the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014. The legislation, if not amended, would therefore always allow discrimination in employment based on political opinion. This was what had occurred in 2012, when workers in the aluminium industry had been asked to give up their membership in the GFBTU in order to be reinstated. Additionally, a member of that Federation, who was also a member of the tripartite committee for the reintegration of the unemployed, had been dismissed for a period of six weeks, then reinstated without compensation and forced to take annual leave. The principles of non-discrimination should be applied, in law and practice, both in the private sector and in procedures for access to the public sector. In this regard, the Government maintained that there were no cases of discrimination and that no such complaints had been received; however, several examples demonstrated the contrary.

Third, the Government affirmed that a flexible work permit system had been put in place to enable migrant workers in an irregular situation to regularize their status, enabling them to benefit from social insurance, unemployment insurance and health-care systems. This was a crucial point, since over 77 per cent of the workforce in the country were migrant workers. However, the system did not apply to skilled workers, workers who had escaped abusive employers, or domestic and agricultural workers. The workers eligible for the permit could only work without a sponsor provided that they covered certain costs, such as annual fees for work permits, health care and a social insurance contribution. This amounted to treating workers as though they were self-employed workers for whom employers had no responsibility. Furthermore, a valid passport had to be presented for a permit to be granted. Migrant workers in an irregular situation, however, did not generally have their passports, as they were most often kept by their previous employers. The Labour Market Regulatory Authority continued to permit employers to include a clause in employment contracts restricting approval of a transfer to another employer for a specified period, which constituted a moderate version of the kafala system. The unified employment contract, adopted in 2017, extended only partial protection of the Labour Code to domestic workers, who were only covered if they were recruited by agencies and not by private individuals. The cases of physical and sexual violence towards female migrant domestic workers were also deplorable. Legislation on migrant workers was, therefore, still incompatible with the Convention.

Fourth, in the report sent to the Committee of Experts, the Government had outlined a number of steps taken to promote equality between men and women, but no information was provided on the impact of these steps. The lack of improvement with regard to special protection measures from which women were supposed to benefit was equally regrettable: not only were women prohibited from entering certain professions (beyond what was necessary to protect maternity), but discriminatory practices existed in certain sectors (particularly air transport) that undermined maternity protection (maternity leave classed as unpaid leave or dismissal on grounds of pregnancy).

Fifth, the Committee had adopted conclusions on the lack of a definition and explicit prohibition of sexual harassment in law, but those conclusions had not been followed up. The argument that the lack of harassment complaints showed that there was no need to make the changes requested was unfounded: first, in the absence of a specific framework for harassment, other channels – such as laws on human trafficking – were used; second, a lack of complaints was not the same as saying that harassment did not happen; last, as the Committee of Experts had pointed out, other facts could explain the lack of complaints, such as fear of reprisals, lack of access to complaints mechanisms and means of redress, or even a lack of awareness. The speaker concluded by expressing the hope that the Government would take note of the fact that the delay in implementing the Committee’s recommendations, inertia and sometimes even denial of reality were incompatible with progress and the quest for social justice, and that it would act in a determined way to eliminate all forms of discrimination.

The Employer member of Bahrain stated that, following last year’s discussion, it was important to highlight the close tripartite cooperation between the social partners and the Government through bilateral and tripartite committees. He recalled the key role played by the BCCI in resolving the situation of those who had been dismissed, by persuading companies to provide satisfactory and compatible settlements, ensuring sound working relations and safeguarding the rights of all parties. Companies had covered the insurance contributions of dismissed workers during the period of separation to ensure continuous coverage without interruption. Moreover, the Committee on the Application of Standards and the ILO should acknowledge all the measures and initiatives taken by the Government to combat discrimination and to apply the principles of the Convention. The procedures available in the country to guarantee the rights of workers, such as complaint mechanisms, grievance procedures and the right to litigation, constituted pioneering measures contributing to the effective protection of workers’ rights. The speaker considered that the panoply of regulations and measures adopted by the Government were progressive and had had a significant positive impact on the workers of Bahrain. With regard to the issue of equality of opportunity between men and women in employment and occupation, it was important to highlight the increasing percentage of women’s participation in the labour force year after year, which had reached about 39 per cent of the total national workforce. Bahraini women had proven their ability to reach the highest levels of employment, including CEOs of major companies in the country, and had developed sophisticated business models. Moreover, during the recent elections of the BCCI board of directors on 10 March 2018, three women had been elected to the board. The speaker emphasized the importance of continuing to hold fruitful tripartite meetings, which contributed to the adoption of measures promoting decent work opportunities and equality and combating discrimination. Technical cooperation programmes, in collaboration with the ILO, would support the development of common relations and raise the level of compliance with international labour standards.

The Worker member of Bahrain welcomed the acceptance by the Government of a direct contacts mission and inquired about its time frame, stressing the need for the mission to meet with all the relevant parties who had participated in the adoption of the Tripartite Agreements. The matters dealt with in the Agreements had not yet been resolved, as there were still workers who had not been reinstated and who had been without work for more than seven years. There were even a number of workers who had not returned to their former positions and had been demoted to lower level jobs. It was inaccurate to say that this case was closed, as the National Tripartite Committee had held only two meetings during the past year and had made no progress in this regard. The speaker also considered that re-examining the justification of the 165 cases did not make sense, as they had already been discussed and finalized within the framework of the Tripartite Agreement of March 2014. Regarding the dismissed workers who had been rehired in other jobs or who had obtained commercial registers, it was important to record that this had occurred because of their personal persistence when they despaired of being reinstated. There was not any support received from the Ministry of Labour in this regard. Currently, 64 cases of dismissal among the 165 were still pending. In order to facilitate the quick resolution of these cases, the GFBTU had selected a priority group of 37 cases of workers who had been working in the biggest government-owned companies and public institutions and had submitted the list to the Government. The speaker further insisted that this initiative was not meant to do away with the rest of the 165 cases. The speaker also insisted on the importance of respecting the Tripartite Agreements as constituting a binding contract between the three parties, which aimed to strengthen social dialogue under the auspices of the ILO.

These Agreements had provided a legal framework complementing the national labour law, and therefore should not focus only on the reinstatement of the dismissed workers, although this matter was at the heart of the Agreements. In addition, it was crucial to take the following measures as specified in the Tripartite Agreement: (i) avoid the recurrence of dismissals of workers for the same reasons as in the complaint. The GFBTU had been regrettably registering cases of dismissal and suspension of workplace entry badges on the same discriminatory background mentioned in the complaint, and the Ministry of Labour and Social Development was accordingly kept aware of this situation; (ii) establish a tripartite mechanism/body to follow-up on cases of discrimination in employment and occupation and to ensure conformity with the Convention, as proclaimed in both the Convention and the Tripartite Agreement. For instance, section 39 of the Labour Law of the Private Sector had ignored the comprehensive definition of discrimination enshrined in the Convention and had limited it to the subject of remuneration, thus leaving the door open to other forms of discrimination in employment and occupation; (iii) provide financial compensation and social insurance coverage to the reinstated workers for the period of the dismissal; (iv) ratify the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), as there were tens of thousands of workers in the government sector who had been denied the right to organize under Circular No. 1 of 10 February 2003 on the right of civil service workers to join workers’ unions, the establishment of unions in public sector institutions was illegal, in violation of the Constitution of Bahrain, which did not distinguish between workers in the private and public sectors as far as the right to establish trade union organizations was concerned; and (v) ensure respect for the Constitution of Bahrain, which proclaimed in its article 37 that international Conventions and Treaties, once ratified, had the force of law. Therefore, all requirements contained in the Convention were legally binding. The speaker expressed his readiness to continue to cooperate with the Government and the social partners in order to better implement the provisions of the Convention and the Tripartite Agreement.

The Government member of Kuwait, speaking also on behalf of the Government members of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Yemen, welcomed the efforts made by Bahrain to give effect to the observations of the Committee of Experts and to fulfil its obligations relating to the application of the Convention. The Government had already undertaken to give effect to the conclusions of the Conference Committee at its 2017 session, and had fulfilled its commitments. It was necessary to give the Government sufficient time to implement all of the recommendations that had been made, particularly those relating to legislative amendments. The absence of a definition or a specific legal text did not necessarily mean that workers were deprived of protection. Their rights were protected by the administrative and judicial authorities. The action taken by the Government should be welcomed and it was to be hoped that the Committee would take into account the results achieved and the close cooperation between the social partners. The Government should also be encouraged to continue promoting social dialogue with a view to reinforcing decent work and ensuring equality between all individuals. The speaker called on the ILO to develop technical cooperation programmes in the countries mentioned, with a view to strengthening commitment to the implementation of international labour standards.

The Government member of Bulgaria, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Norway, recalled that these countries attached great importance to the respect of human rights, as safeguarded by the fundamental ILO Conventions and other human rights instruments. The EU was engaged in promoting their universal ratification and implementation, as part of its Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights. Regrettably, this case had already been discussed in the Committee last year, as well as at the ILO Governing Body some years ago following a complaint made by workers under article 26 of the ILO Constitution. According to the allegations, suspensions and various forms of sanctions had been imposed on trade union leaders and members as a result of demonstrations in February 2011. In 2012 and 2014, tripartite agreements had been reached, and a National Tripartite Committee had been created to ensure follow-up on the cases. The updated information submitted by the Government regarding the settlement of the cases was welcomed but it was necessary to receive evidence that the 165 cases of dismissed workers had been resolved. The speaker asked the Government to indicate what conditions had to be fulfilled in order to obtain a certificate of rehabilitation for workers who had been convicted by a judicial decision. She recalled the Committee’s conclusions adopted in 2017, in particular that the Government had been requested: (i) to formulate a definition of discrimination that covered all workers in all forms of employment, and to prohibit direct and indirect discrimination based on all grounds covered by the Convention; and (ii) to ensure comprehensive protection of civil servants against discrimination through the amendment of Legislative Decree No. 48 of 2010 regarding the civil service. It was regrettable that no measure had been taken to address these two issues. The speaker called on the Government to provide information on the specific measures adopted to ensure the effective protection against discrimination, based on all the grounds set out in the Convention, of migrant workers, in particular as regards the very vulnerable domestic workers who were mostly women. She welcomed the new legislation rendering it mandatory for employers to deposit the salaries of domestic and unskilled workers in bank accounts, and looked forward to its effective implementation before the end of 2018. Noting with interest the process initiated by the Government with a view to abolishing the Kafala system and the introduction in 2017 of a flexible work permit system in order to allow migrant workers to change employers, she called on the Government to ensure that any rules adopted to regulate this right did not impose conditions or limitations that would increase the migrants’ dependency on their employers and thus their vulnerability. In view of the allegations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) regarding the limitations of the flexible work permit system, the speaker requested the Government to provide information on the practical implementation of the system, including the number of cases where transfer to another employer had not been approved. The Government was invited: (i) to provide more information on efforts made to inform migrant workers and their employers of existing mechanisms to advance their claims to the relevant authorities; and (ii) to enhance the capacity of competent authorities and institutions to identify and address cases of discrimination. The speaker noted with interest the information provided by the Government on measures taken with regard to equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women in employment and occupation and indicated that further information on the concrete impact of such measures, notably on increasing the number of women in leadership positions and improving their situation in the labour market, would be welcomed. In view of the fact that, despite being prohibited in the Penal Code, sexual harassment was neither defined nor prohibited in labour law, and given the sensitivity of the issue, the heavier burden of proof and the limited scope of the Penal Code, the Government was called, once again, to include provisions to that effect in the labour or civil law, to take measures to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and to provide remedies to victims and impose dissuasive sanctions on perpetrators. The lack of complaints did not mean that there was no harassment in practice. The speaker encouraged the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance, in order to adopt the legislative and practical measures necessary to address the issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Employer member of Kuwait welcomed the close cooperation between the social partners in bipartite and tripartite commissions. The Government had made a positive contribution to the action taken with regard to the cases of workers who had been dismissed in the public and private sectors following the events of February and March 2011. The Government had played an active role, in collaboration with the employers, to find a satisfactory solution through the reinstatement of the workers, while guaranteeing good labour relations and the protection of their rights. The Committee should take into consideration the initiatives taken by the Government to combat discrimination and to give effect to the principles set out in the Convention. Procedures had been established for that purpose to safeguard the rights of workers, including access to justice and the right to lodge complaints. Those progressive measures were contributing to the protection of workers, not only against discrimination, but also against any violation of their rights. With reference to equality of opportunity for men and women, there had been a significant increase of participation of women in the labour market and they benefited from the privileges set out in the national legislation. In practice, women occupied positions with high levels of responsibility in the same way as men, including as ministers, ambassadors and presidents of administrative boards in the private sector. In conclusion, he encouraged the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance, which would contribute to the development of harmonious mutual relations and the promotion of international labour standards.

The Government member of the United Arab Emirates said that his country appreciated the efforts made by the Government to fulfil its obligations in relation to the ILO, including to give effect to the observations made by the Committee of Experts on discrimination in employment and occupation. The Government however needed more time to put the observations into practice. It was making substantial efforts to strengthen the rights of workers and to provide comfort and well-being for the residents of the country, as illustrated by the legislative reforms undertaken. Indeed, workers and employers were protected against any form of discrimination, work permits were granted in a flexible manner and the protection of wages was guaranteed, as well as the right to change employer. More time would be needed to assess the impact of the effect given to the observations of the Committee of Experts, as legislative reforms required time to deliver results. Finally, the technical assistance provided by the ILO was greatly appreciated.

The Worker member of the Philippines stated that many Filipinos considered themselves lucky to be working in “progressive and very open” Bahrain. While working, they even brought their families to reside and live in that country. There were 60,000 Filipinos living and working in Bahrain, and they included professional, skilled and semi-skilled workers as well as household domestic workers. About half of the overseas Filipino workers were domestic workers, and Bahrain had been the first and only country in the region to include, though partially only, domestic workers into its labour law. However, the national legislation did not comply with ILO standards concerning domestic workers. Domestic workers remained excluded from critical protections, such as a fixed minimum wage, limits on working hours, mandatory rest hours or weekly days off, and the recent flexible work permit system adopted by the Government would not be enough to tackle exploitation of workers. First of all, not all categories of workers were eligible to apply for this system. For example, skilled workers and “runaway workers”, a category that included workers who had escaped abusive employers, were not eligible for the system. Also, the unified contract for migrant domestic workers only covered those workers recruited by agencies, and could not be considered as a full protection. Under the unified contract, employers should declare, among other things, the nature of the job, work and rest hours and weekly days off. Yet, the responsibility to translate the contract and inform the domestic worker of all details of the job offer remained solely with the recruitment agencies, allowing the possibility of misinforming the domestic workers about the terms and conditions of the job. Domestic workers were particularly vulnerable to excessive working hours, and many domestic workers worked up to 19 hours a day with no rest day. The speaker concluded by urging the Government to amend national labour legislation to ensure that all migrant workers were fully covered by the provisions of labour law, in order to protect them from any direct or indirect discrimination.

An observer representing Education International (EI) indicated that the situation of teachers and public service workers in Bahrain remained extremely serious. Discrimination, mostly based on sectarian or political grounds, was still firmly entrenched. This prevented many teachers from exercising their profession and vocation, affected their working conditions, and prevented them from being able to associate in trade union organizations. Public sector unions were still prohibited. The Bahrain Teachers Association (BTA) had been dissolved by the authorities in April 2011 and its leaders, Mr Mahdi Abu Dheeb and Ms Jalila Al-Salman, had been accused of political activism and arrested. Mr Abu Dheeb had been released after five years of imprisonment, following intense pressure from the ILO and the international trade union movement. The severe detention conditions had taken a serious toll on his health. No detailed explanation had been given by the Government regarding the reasons for his conviction and detention. Travel bans had been imposed on both Mr Abu Dheeb and Ms Al-Salman on a recurring basis in past years (as recently as September 2017), preventing them from speaking freely about the plight of teachers and unionists in Bahrain. Many other teachers who had been involved in the peaceful protests of 2011 had also been discriminated against on grounds of opinion, belief and trade union affiliation: they had lost their jobs and had not yet been reinstated nor had they received any compensation. The BTA could not operate or communicate efficiently with teachers who were afraid to report what had happened to them, as long as the Government remained hostile. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Education had hired 9,000 expatriate teachers, whereas at least 3,200 Bahraini graduates with degrees in education remained unemployed, all of them belonging to the Shia community. It should also be noted that expatriate teachers were employed on more favourable terms and conditions and were fast-tracked into positions, while Bahraini teachers had to qualify through exams and lengthy assessments.

The Worker member of the United States noted the Government’s acknowledgement that the lack of a definition of sexual harassment in legislation was problematic. The GFBTU had received reports of harassment establishing that sexual harassment certainly occurred, even if there were no officially reported cases. Sexual harassment was a serious form of sex discrimination in violation of the Convention and formed a barrier for women in the workplace. Without a definition of sexual harassment, women could not point to a standard in order to inform their employers that something unacceptable was happening; likewise, employers did not have a guideline to measure when supervisors were acting inappropriately. As sexual harassment involved one person asserting power over another, laws preventing it were particularly important at work, where the power dynamic already tipped in the employer’s favour. The general penal provision outlawing violence and aggression was inadequate to address sexual harassment in the workplace, because it focused on sexual assault. However, sexual harassment encompassed a range of activities far broader than that, and holding individuals accountable under penal law failed to impose any obligations on employers to provide harassment-free workplaces. That legal scheme, therefore, acted more as a mechanism for punishment than as a tool for prevention and elimination of sexual harassment in the world of work, as envisaged by Article 2 of the Convention. The speaker hoped that the Committee’s conclusions would include recommendations for a law broadly defining sexual harassment, including prohibitions on unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, any kind of verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature and offensive remarks about a person’s sex, so that both hostile environment and quid pro quo harassment would be unlawful. This law should cover both domestic and migrant workers. Also, a mechanism should be created whereby victims of harassment could lodge complaints that would be investigated and prosecuted, while the existing laws should be amended accordingly, including the Labour Law of the Private Sector and Legislative Decree No. 48/2010. Finally, the speaker called for an educational campaign on this topic.

The Government member of Egypt welcomed the efforts made by the Government for the reinstatement and compensation of dismissed workers. The amendments to the Labour Code offered the best guarantee of the rights of migrant workers, for example, by permitting them to change employers without imposing abusive conditions. The amendments also enabled workers to obtain work permits under less strict conditions. The increase in the participation rate of women on the labour market showed the Government’s efforts to actively give effect to the provisions of the Convention. The speaker encouraged the Government to strengthen its cooperation with the ILO in order to improve the application of the provisions of the Convention in law and practice.

The Worker member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the Worker members of the Nordic countries and the United Kingdom, recalled that migrant workers constituted around 77 per cent of the workforce in Bahrain. Many were exploited and deprived of their economic and social rights. In May 2017, the Ministry of the Interior had introduced a pilot scheme for a flexible working permit for limited categories of migrant workers in irregular situations, permitting them to work without a sponsor, provided that the workers covered certain costs, such as fees for work permits, health care and social insurance. It was anticipated that the Ministry of the Interior would issue up to 2,000 permits per month. However, many workers who had a sponsor were not eligible for the flexible work permit scheme, such as skilled workers and workers who had escaped abusive employers. Moreover, workers had to provide a valid passport in order to apply for a permit and many migrants were not in possession of their own passports. In addition, domestic workers and agricultural workers were excluded from this scheme. It was estimated that there were more than 100,000 domestic workers in Bahrain, who were excluded from a number of labour law provisions. The speaker further emphasized that there was no minimum wage protection. The wage gap between migrants and nationals was huge, and migrant workers were excluded from insurance for old age, disability and death. According to the 2017 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report, issued by the United States Department of State, officials from the Government and non-governmental organizations had reported that physical abuse and sexual assault of female domestic workers were significant problems in Bahrain. In addition, domestic workers often worked up to 19-hour days with minimal breaks, being only partly covered by the labour law and without receiving overtime pay. National laws excluded private homes from labour inspection, effectively resulting in a total absence of labour inspection into the conditions of work of domestic workers. The speaker concluded by expressing full support for the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, urging the Government to take quick and urgent action to ensure legal protection for migrant workers.

An observer representing the International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) indicated that, in December 2017, the ITF and the GFBTU had been received by the country’s Minister of Labour and Social Development to discuss maritime labour issues. At that meeting, the Government had expressed its firm commitment to protecting the labour rights of maritime workers and the Minister had reiterated his willingness to cooperate with international workers’ organizations such as the ITF. The speaker hoped that this commitment to protecting workers’ rights would also translate into a pledge by the Government to fully implement the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014. There were still a number of workers named in the annexes to the Tripartite Agreements (including transport workers) whose cases had not been resolved. Those workers needed to be reinstated or offered alternative employment and receive financial compensation and statutory entitlements for the entire period of their dismissal. The speaker recalled that this was the second consecutive year that the Committee on the Application of Standards had examined Bahrain’s failure to develop a legal framework to protect the rights of women workers in line with the Convention and to enforce existing legal provisions. With regard to the latter, despite several provisions in the law relating to maternity protection, the country’s leading airline maintained policies and practices that directly contravened these laws. At the airline, not only was maternity leave unpaid, but the worker was also required to pay the employer’s social security contributions during the leave period. Pregnant migrant workers were forced to vacate their paid company accommodation and find an alternative one at their own expense. Incredibly, a pregnant worker could expect her employment contract to be automatically terminated once she declared her pregnancy – with no guarantee of reinstatement. In three recent cases, crew members had not been reinstated after maternity leave. While the Bahrain Civil Aviation Law required annual medical assessments for flight crews, the airline took advantage of this requirement in order to carry out compulsory pregnancy testing. The company’s recruitment practices were no better. The airline had recently listed vacancies for cabin crew on its website, but only single persons without children had been invited to apply. Distinctions in employment based on pregnancy or maternity were considered to be discriminatory under the Convention, as they could only, by definition, affect women. The Committee of Experts had repeatedly stressed that discrimination on these grounds constitutes a serious form of discrimination on the basis of sex. In conclusion, the speaker urged the Government to bring its legislation into line with the Convention, in consultation with the social partners, and to resolve the outstanding cases covered by the Tripartite Agreements within 12 months. He also called on the Government to ensure that its labour inspectorate was adequately resourced to tackle gender-based discrimination in the workplace.

The Government member of Switzerland said that he supported the statement made by the Government member of Bulgaria on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Norway.

The Employer member of Algeria said that she had closely followed the Government’s statement that the Labour Ministry had redressed the situation of dismissed workers, either by reinstating them or by offering them a new job. With regard to other workers, the Government had had recourse to social insurance. There did not seem to be any discrimination in employment in the country, but the Committee of Experts was nevertheless requesting the promulgation of supplementary legislation. In this regard, ILO technical assistance was greatly appreciated. The legislative reform undertaken by the Government, in consultation with the social partners with a view to promoting migrant workers’ rights, was a strong example of tripartite willingness to ensure good working conditions without discrimination. The Government was taking measures to ensure that women held significant positions in the labour market, while also guaranteeing that sexual harassment was prohibited in labour law. The rate of women’s participation in the labour market, both in the private and public sectors, hovered between 36 and 39 per cent. She hoped that the Committee of Experts would take into consideration the efforts made by the Government and that the Office would provide the technical assistance necessary to strengthen Bahraini labour law in conformity with the Convention.

An observer representing the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) indicated that workers’ organizations in the public sector benefited from the same privileges as those in the private sector. Moreover, dispute resolution mechanisms were available to examine the application of the legislation.

The Worker member of Sudan, speaking also on behalf of the Worker members of Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, affirmed that the Bahraini people, without distinction, enjoyed freedom to participate in political life and that there was no discrimination based on political opinion. Similarly, there had been no dismissals on the basis of political opinion. All those who had been dismissed during the events of 2011 had been reinstated. Moreover, all allegations made by the ITUC concerning such dismissals were unfounded, ill-intentioned and did not reflect reality. According to an international investment bank, foreign workers living in the country enjoyed very good working conditions. In this regard, Bahrain was ranked in second place among the Gulf countries and tenth place worldwide. With regard to equality of opportunity in employment and occupation, Bahraini women occupied senior posts. In 2017, women occupied 48 per cent of public sector posts, 37 per cent of senior management posts, 59 per cent of middle-management posts and 32 per cent of decision-making positions in the executive branch. In addition, the country had the highest rate of independent business women (28 per cent) among the countries in the Middle East and North Africa. According to a 2016 ILO report, there had been an increase in the rate of women in positions on companies’ executive boards (from 12 to 14 per cent). These changes constituted real success, since certain posts had for a long time been monopolized by men, particularly political, parliamentary, judicial, diplomatic and military functions. In conclusion, no one could deny the progress that had been made to protect workers, and the insistence on placing Bahrain on the list of individual cases, while omitting many countries which imprisoned, killed and persecuted workers’ representatives, was surprising.

The Worker member of Spain considered that, seven years after the demonstrations of 14 February 2011, the situation had reached a tipping point as the Bahraini people had been placed under pressure by various means. In terms of issues relating to the implementation of the Convention, reference should be made to a number of measures, including forced unemployment, the non-hiring of workers for political reasons and the withdrawal of Bahraini nationality. The latter was a particularly worrying practice for Bahraini workers who, in many cases, had been stripped of their nationality for political reasons. Over the previous six years, the system had gradually started punishing and silencing political opponents and defenders of civil liberties, including trade union leaders. Since 2012, a total of 719 people had been stripped of their nationality, and 213 citizens had been stripped of their nationality in 2018 alone. This was a clear violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which established that all people had the right to nationality and that nobody could be arbitrarily deprived of it. The consequences were dramatic: citizens who had had their nationality revoked were considered migrant workers and, under Legislative Decree No. 36 of 2015, were denied all rights and benefits, including social security benefits, despite having contributed to the system for years. The situation was playing out against the backdrop of a labour market which largely depended on a migrant workforce that was unskilled and badly paid. The public sector mainly employed people born in the country, while immigrants were mainly employed in the private sector. For example, Mr Hussein Khair Mohammadi, Vice-President of a trade union at enterprise level, after refusing to be pressured into leaving his trade union post, had had his nationality revoked in January 2017, along with his right to work and to social security. Such practices were discriminatory and were blatant violations of Article 5 of the Convention.

The Government representative reaffirmed his Government’s commitment to take into consideration the Committee of Experts’ comments, and underlined the following: (i) the resolution of the cases of the dismissed workers had not yet been closed and the process was still ongoing; (ii) the certificate of rehabilitation was a procedure under the Criminal Procedure Law and not necessarily a condition for employment in some companies; and (iii) the flexible work permit scheme had been a positive step that guaranteed the rights of the workers concerned. Regarding the prerequisite of a valid passport, this problem should be resolved by the relevant embassies. The speaker reaffirmed the Government’s commitment towards the ILO supervisory bodies, and highlighted the importance of ensuring more transparency in the selection of the list of cases.

The Worker members drew the Government’s attention to the fact that the objective of the Committee’s conclusions was to generate specific changes. The Government should therefore: (i) take the necessary measures to enable the direct contacts mission to be carried out as soon as possible; (ii) ensure the proper implementation of the Tripartite Agreements and communicate detailed information on this subject to the Committee of Experts; and (iii) adopt a definition of discrimination in the legislation that is in conformity with the Convention, ensuring that this legislation covered all categories of workers, especially those most in need of protection. They reiterated that the Labour Law of the Private Sector of 2012 (Law No. 36/2012) should be amended to extend its scope of application to domestic workers, and persons regarded as such, and set out, in articles 39 and 104, all the grounds of discrimination listed in the Convention. Legislative Decree No. 48/2010 should be amended to ensure that public workers enjoyed adequate protection against direct and indirect discrimination in employment and occupation, on all the grounds set out in the Convention. This protection should not only be provided for in law, but also in practice. With regard to migrant workers, application of the flexible work permit scheme should be extended to skilled workers, domestic and agricultural workers, and workers who had fled their employers due to abuses. All social contingencies should be covered, including old age, and all contributions should be paid by the employer. It was essential to extend application of the labour law to all domestic workers, irrespective of how they were recruited, and to ensure that they benefited from all protections provided for in law, particularly the right to a minimum wage and limits on working hours. In addition, measures effectively protecting women’s rights should be adopted, including measures to enable women to access certain occupations and maternity protection. The Government was also invited to formulate legislation defining and explicitly prohibiting sexual harassment.

The Employer members welcomed the commitment of the Government to continue to cooperate with the social partners and to provide additional information to the Committee of Experts regarding measures taken to ensure conformity with the Convention. They took due note of the statements made by several members of the Committee, welcoming the efforts undertaken by the Government, acknowledging positively the increased participation of women in the labour market, calling on the Committee on the Application of Standards to recognize the efforts made and encouraging the Government to continue to strengthen social dialogue and to avail itself of ILO technical assistance. The Employer members noted in a positive spirit the Government’s acceptance of a direct contacts mission, which would assist in the submission of additional information to further assess the situation. Furthermore, they called on the Government to ensure that: (i) the national legislation covered all recognized prohibited grounds of discrimination set out in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, and a comprehensive definition of discrimination was formulated in the legislation in compliance with the Convention; and (ii) discrimination in employment and occupation was prohibited in law and practice both in the private and public sectors. The Government should continue to furnish information concerning measures taken on the above and in regard to the position of women in the labour market. They also encouraged the Government to take advantage of the review of “protective” legislation to ensure, in law and practice, respect for the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment between men and women in employment and occupation. Lastly, the Employer members urged the Government to ensure that sexual harassment was adequately prohibited in national legislation, and to provide the Committee of Experts with information on steps taken to this end.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral statements made by the Government and the discussion that followed.

Taking into account the Committee’s conclusions of 2017, the Committee notes with interest the Government’s stated commitment to accept a direct contacts mission in short order.

The Committee noted the Government’s stated commitment to formulate a comprehensive definition of discrimination in line with the Convention. The Committee regretted the absence of information with respect to allegations concerning the operation of the flexi-scheme and its impact on the labour protections afforded to migrant workers.

Taking into account the Government’s submission and the discussion that followed, the Committee called upon the Government to:

- provide further information on the measures taken to implement the commitments contained in the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014 in connection with the Government’s efforts to comply with Convention No. 111 to the Committee of Experts for its November 2018 session;

- ensure that all the outstanding cases of reinstatement and compensation for the cases falling under the scope of the Tripartite Agreements are resolved expediently;

- ensure that the Labour Law in the Private Sector of 2012 and Legislative Decree No. 48 of 2010 cover all recognized prohibited grounds of discrimination set out in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, in both direct and indirect forms, and undertake measures to ensure that discrimination in employment and occupation is prohibited in law and practice;

- ensure that migrant workers as well as domestic workers are included in the protection of anti-discrimination law;

- repeal any provisions that constitute an obstacle to the recruitment and employment of women in order to ensure equality of opportunity and treatment in employment of women; and

- ensure that sexual harassment is explicitly prohibited in the civil or labour law and that necessary steps to introduce preventive measures are taken.

Having noted the Government’s stated commitment to accept a direct contacts mission, the Committee encouraged the Government to address the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee requested that the Government reports in detail on the measures taken to implement these recommendations to the next meeting of the Committee of Experts in November 2018.

The Government representative referred to his Government’s opening statement which was clear and contained a lot of information on the application of the flexible work permit system. Further information would be provided in the course of the year. The fact that the flexible work permit system was a pilot being implemented for the first time in the region should be taken into consideration. His Government was ready to cooperate with the ILO and accepted the recommendations, noting that these were the same as those adopted following the previous discussion in 2017. Contact would be maintained with the Office to identify a suitable time for the direct contacts mission, which he expected would lead to a successful outcome.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2017, Publication: 106th ILC session (2017)



A Government representative stressed the Government’s willingness to positively interact with all comments and its commitment to the application of international labour standards. Article 18 of the Constitution of Bahrain stated, that people were equal in human dignity and equal in rights and duties under the law, without distinction as to race, origin or language, religion or creed. The legislator defined the rights and duties of all individuals governed by the law without any discrimination. For example, the Labour Law for the Private Sector No. 36 of 2012 regulated the relationship between employers and workers in general and did not distinguish between a national and a migrant worker or between men and women. It was also expressly prohibited for employers to discriminate with regard to wages for reasons of gender, origin, language, religion or creed. Bahrain had a distinct system for managing the labour market and regulating the relationship between employers and workers, based on partnership and transparency. It had taken the following pioneering initiatives in the region to promote the rights of workers according to international labour standards: (i) the right of an expatriate worker to move from one employer to another without the consent of the employer; (ii) the introduction of a flexible work permit system, which allowed any expatriate worker working in an unfair situation to apply independently for a personal work permit without being associated with an employer, in accordance with the established regulations, thus avoiding any exploitation and guaranteeing access to all aspects of legal care and protection; (iii) the introduction of a national referral system to combat trafficking in persons, which ensured the monitoring of any case or complaint related to trafficking, as well as providing support to the victims and safeguarding their legitimate rights; (iv) the right of all workers to benefit from the system of unemployment insurance without distinction based on categories or nationalities; (v) recognition of the right of representation for all workers in trade unions regardless of their nationality, of the right to strike to defend their legitimate interests, full-time trade union activities and the protection of trade unionists from dismissal because of their trade union activities; (vi) application of the basic provisions of the Labour Law concerning labour contracts, protection of wages, annual leave, end of service indemnity and exemption from litigation fees to domestic workers; and (vii) implementation of the Decent Work Agenda in cooperation with the ILO.

Many international reports had praised Bahrain’s pioneering steps in terms of labour market regulation, and labour-exporting countries had expressed recognition during official meetings of the care and protection enjoyed by expatriate workers in the Bahraini labour market. The speaker pointed out that the comments of the Committee of Experts did not address the existence of serious violations or breaches but were limited to some formal points, which did not conflict with the existing trends and policies in the country. The comments concerned the lack of a comprehensive definition of discrimination in the Labour Law and the Legislative Decree No. 48 of 2010 regarding the civil service, the lack of a definition of workplace sexual harassment in the Labour Law, and the need for procedures to protect expatriate workers.

With regard to the Committee of Experts’ comments on the lack of a comprehensive definition of all forms of discrimination in line with the Convention, the speaker stressed that actual violations had not been identified. However, the Government was ready to cooperate with the ILO and examine the possibility of developing a comprehensive definition of discrimination in these two laws in accordance with international labour standards and specific constitutional and legislative mechanisms and procedures. All national laws were in conformity with the Convention. Section 39 of the Labour Law was very explicit and clear in the definition and prohibition of discrimination. Section 168 of that law as well as Act No. 17 of 2007 on vocational training did not differentiate between workers in determining an employer’s obligations regarding vocational training. There were a number of mechanisms available to workers in the private sector to submit complaints in accordance with the protection of their interests and their right to work, such as the mechanism for settling individual and collective disputes under the Labour Law. The worker was entitled to file an administrative complaint alleging discrimination or resort to the judiciary. As for public sector employees, the law required the formation of an internal committee in all government agencies to handle complaints filed by employees subject to the civil service law. If the complaint was not settled, the civil servant could file a complaint with the Civil Service Bureau about any measure taken by the employer and had the right to appeal the decision to the courts.

Secondly, regarding the Committee of Experts’ comments on the need to legally prohibit sexual harassment at work and to provide for remedies and deterrent sanctions, the Government representative indicated that sections 81 and 107 of the Labour Law and paragraph 33 of the Schedule of Violations and Penalties in the Legislative Decree regarding the civil service laid down the penalty of dismissal if a worker or employee violated public morals or honour. The Supreme Council for Women (SCW) monitored any violation of women’s rights. There had been no cases of sexual harassment in the workplace, and he believed that the Worker and Employer members of Bahrain shared this position. Should the Organization or any other party have information on any such case, the Government was fully prepared to study and respond to it firmly.

Thirdly, with regard to the Committee of Experts’ comments concerning the protection of migrant workers, the speaker stated that national labour legislation provided legal protection in terms of regulating labour relations in line with international labour standards. The Ministry of Labour and Social Development and the Labour Market Regulatory Authority (LMRA) did not tolerate any practices of exploitation of migrant workers in the labour market. Many support services had been put in place for migrant workers in the event of abusive practices by employers, such as mechanisms for submitting individual complaints to the Ministry of Labour for the purpose of amicable settlement and direct call centres in the LMRA, which operated in several languages and could inform the worker about his or her work permit status via various electronic means so as to ensure employers’ compliance with their licences. At the same time, expatriate workers had the right to asylum. The Government had issued awareness-raising publications in 14 different languages to be distributed to expatriate workers prior to their arrival and had established a special unit, the first in the region, to support and protect expatriate workers, which operated in seven languages and included a shelter centre that provided integrated services for migrant workers who were victims of exploitation by employers. The concerned bodies were also in contact with foreign embassies to resolve any outstanding problems and help them to regularize the situation of expatriate workers. A grace period had been implemented in 2016, during which the Government had allowed expatriate workers to regularize their legal status before the competent authorities.

Regarding the freedom of movement of expatriate workers, the Government representative indicated that the freedom of movement regime had been in place in Bahrain since 2009. Between 2015 and 2016, approximately 60,000 migrant workers had moved from one employer to another. Section 25 of the LMRA Law No. 19 of 2006 and Ministerial Decision No. 79 of 2008 regarding the procedures for the transfer of foreign workers to another employer were explicit and clear in this matter. Workers had the right to move from one employer to another without obtaining the employer’s consent, while complying with the conditions and deadlines stipulated in the Ministerial Decision. The addition by the employer of a clause in the employment contract prohibiting the worker’s transfer before a certain period of time had passed nevertheless did not nullify the right of the worker to move to another employer. The procedure required the observance of such period and the employer who claimed to be harmed could resort to the judiciary as a result of the worker’s non-compliance with the employment contract. However, no such cases had been registered at present.

The speaker recalled that the Governing Body had decided in March 2014 to close the complaint procedure under article 26 of the ILO Constitution, in view of the historic consensus of the tripartite partners who had signed the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014 under the auspices of the ILO, in particular with respect to financial settlements for the remaining cases of dismissals, and provision of insurance coverage for the period of the interruption. He expressed his Government’s appreciation for the role played by the Organization in the signing of the two tripartite agreements. The Government, via the national tripartite committee, which included representatives of the Bahrain Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI) and the General Federation of Bahrain Trade Unions (GFBTU), had made every effort to settle 98 per cent of the cases, by reinstating the dismissed workers to their jobs in the public and private sectors while preserving all their rights and pension benefits. One hundred and fifty-six of 165 unemployed persons on the list annexed to the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014 had been reinstated in their former or similar jobs or sometimes paid financial compensation. As for the few remaining cases, the national tripartite committee had found that they were either cases of dismissal unrelated to the events of February and March 2011 or that the workers had been convicted on criminal charges unrelated to work. Lastly, it was ensured that no worker would be harmed due to the interruption of payment of insurance contributions, in accordance with the 2014 Supplementary Agreement. The majority of large companies, at their own initiative, had generously covered all insurance contributions during the period of absence from work.

The Employer members recalled that the Government had ratified this fundamental Convention in 2000 and that the Committee of Experts had presented four observations on this case in 2008, 2009, 2012 and 2016. In June 2011, a complaint had been filed under article 26 of the ILO Constitution by some Workers’ delegates at the Conference concerning the non-observance by Bahrain of the Convention. According to the allegations, in February 2011, suspensions and various forms of sanctions had been imposed on workers and trade union members, as a result of peaceful demonstrations demanding economic and social changes. The complaint alleged that the dismissals had taken place on the grounds of the workers’ political opinion.

Subsequently, a Tripartite Agreement and a Supplementary Tripartite Agreement had been signed in 2012 and 2014, respectively, by the Government, the GFBTU and the BCCI. At its 320th Session (March 2014), the Governing Body had invited the Committee of Experts to examine the application of the Convention by the Government, and to follow up on the implementation of the agreements reached. According to the Tripartite Agreement of 2012, the national tripartite committee that had been put in place to examine the situation of the dismissed workers should continue its work. Under the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014, the Government, the GFBTU and the BCCI had agreed to: (i) refer to a tripartite committee those cases that had not been settled and which related to financial claims or compensation and, in the absence of consensus, refer them to the judiciary; (ii) ensure social insurance coverage for the workers for the period of interrupted services; and (iii) reinstate the 165 dismissed workers from the public service sector, in major corporations owned by the Government or certain private companies. The Government had not furnished any information to the Committee of Experts in respect of measures taken to implement the agreements. In this regard, the Employer members, having noted the information provided, urged the Government to report to the Committee of Experts on the specific measures taken to implement the Tripartite Agreement of 2012 and the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014.

They also referred to the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning: the absence in national law of a definition of discrimination that includes all prohibited grounds listed in the Convention; the limited protection against discrimination under the Labour Law; and the lack of a prohibition against discrimination in the Legislative Decree regarding the civil service. The Employer members, welcoming the commitment expressed by the Government in this regard and encouraging collaboration with the ILO, urged the Government to draft, with technical assistance from the Office, a definition of discrimination which includes all of the prohibited grounds set out in the Convention. They also encouraged the Government to include a prohibition against discrimination in the Legislative Decree regarding the civil service and to ensure the protection of equality of opportunity and treatment in employment. Welcoming the Government’s indication that existing legislation prohibited all forms of discrimination, they requested the Government to provide copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

With reference to the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning the absence of a legal definition of and prohibition against sexual harassment, the Employer members noted the Government’s indication that sections 81 and 107 of the Labour Law and paragraph 33 of the Schedule of Violations and Penalties in the Legislative Decree regarding the civil service penalized sexual harassment by dismissal, and that the issue was being monitored by the SCW. Emphasizing that the Convention prohibited discrimination based on sex and that national legislation should therefore prohibit sexual harassment at the workplace, the Employer members urged the Government to provide additional information in this regard, in particular on the operation of the mentioned provisions in practice, the manner of presenting complaints, and the monitoring by the SCW.

With regard to the comments of the Committee of Experts concerning the protection of migrant workers, such as domestic workers, against discrimination in employment, the Government had referred to measures taken in relation to mobility and trafficking of migrant workers and freedom of association. They encouraged the Government to provide additional information that was more responsive to the Committee of Experts’ comments, regarding the manner in which migrant workers were protected against discrimination in employment in line with the Convention. The Employer members encouraged the Government to engage with the ILO to work towards full compliance with the Convention.

The Worker members said that certain comments by the Committee of Experts concerning the application of this fundamental Convention on discrimination were a particular source of concern. They emphasized that the unjustified differences in treatment implied that not all persons were equal, and this was a direct violation of human dignity. As all societies faced the issue of discrimination, it was essential to establish the mechanisms necessary to eliminate it all over the world, as required by the Convention.

In February 2011, demonstrations had taken place in the country calling for economic and social change, in the context of the “Arab Spring”. From a complaint submitted at the 100th Session of the Conference in June 2011, it emerged that suspensions and sanctions had been imposed on individuals who had taken part in these movements. The years 2012 and 2014 had seen the adoption of a Tripartite Agreement and a Supplementary Tripartite Agreement, respectively, establishing a tripartite committee, the objectives of which were, inter alia, to: (i) reinstate the dismissed workers; (ii) settle claims for financial compensation; and (iii) ensure social security coverage for the period of interrupted service. It should be recalled that freedom of expression was essential to maintain the vitality of society and to achieve human progress. Hence, no individuals should be exposed to discrimination or suffer unfavourable treatment solely on account of their political views, especially when such views were contrary to the prevailing climate of opinion. The setting up of a tripartite committee was testimony to the wish shared by the different stakeholders to find a solution that was acceptable to everyone. Unfortunately, the Government had not provided any information on the implementation of the agreements in practice. Such information should be supplied and the agreements should be applied in full. To avoid any recurrence of such a situation, legislative measures, such as the inclusion of political opinion in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination, needed to be adopted.

With regard to national law, it was essential for it to contain a precise definition of discrimination, specify all prohibited grounds, cover all sectors of the economy and all categories of workers – including agricultural and domestic workers – and expressly forbid direct and indirect discrimination, in all forms of employment and occupation, including in access to vocational training and conditions of employment. The current legislation was inadequate to effectively combat all forms of discrimination under the Convention. Moreover, no information had been supplied on the manner in which the Government ensured that workers were adequately protected against discrimination, particularly via labour inspection or the courts (number of cases handled, penalties imposed, etc.). It should also be noted that entire sectors, such as the education sector, were subject to separate treatment and were deprived of the most fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of association.

With regard to sexual harassment, the Worker members stressed that this was a particularly serious form of discrimination that undermined the integrity and well-being of workers and that the resources allocated to tackling it should be commensurate with the scale of the problem. The Government referred to the provisions of the Penal Code. However, as the Committee of Experts had emphasized, criminal prosecution was not enough to eliminate sexual harassment which needed to be explicitly prohibited by labour legislation, which should prescribe dissuasive penalties and provide for adequate compensation.

Migrant workers accounted for 77 per cent of the country’s workforce and were in a particularly vulnerable situation, which meant that it was vitally important that they should enjoy protection against discrimination on the grounds listed in the Convention. The efforts of the Government should be commended regarding the now recognized right for workers to change employers without prior authorization from their previous employer, and also regarding the possibility to file individual complaints without having to pay legal costs. However, there was a need to ensure that the rules adopted to that end did not have the effect of increasing these workers’ dependence on the employer by subjecting them to additional conditions and restrictions. The Government should also supply information on the following points: (i) the activities of the Labour Market Regulatory Authority regarding requests for transfers, according to sex, occupation and country of origin of the workers, and also cases of refusal and the grounds put forward; and (ii) measures to raise migrant workers’ awareness of the machinery for asserting their rights.

With regard to the direct request of the Committee of Experts, the Worker members also highlighted the issue of equal opportunities for men and women, particularly the prohibition on access to certain occupations imposed on women by the relevant legislation. That prohibition went beyond what was necessary to provide maternity protection. Moreover, certain initiatives of the SCW referred to in the Government’s report, such as the adoption of the National Plan for the Promotion of Women, should be commended, whereas others continued to convey stereotypes and preconceptions relating to the occupational aspirations and abilities of women. While they were aware that there were close links between the current situation and historical and social factors and that it was therefore not easy to make changes, the Worker members emphasized that only a determined, proactive policy offering robust choices could be the means of significant change to current structures. They also called on the Government to take the necessary steps to draw up a national plan for the elimination of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin, as provided for by the Convention.

The Worker members underlined the pioneering role that Bahrain had often played in the region, particularly in relation to national decent work programmes and the gradual abandonment of the kafala system. In order to continue in the direction of greater respect for human rights and social justice, these accomplishments needed to be maintained and reinforced, and the action necessary for implementing the Convention needed to be taken.

The Employer member of Bahrain emphasized the Government’s willingness to launch continuous initiatives to protect and guarantee the right of workers to enjoy an appropriate healthy environment, access to justice and equal treatment, regardless of nationality or category. He commended the valuable cooperation between the Government and the social partners to give concrete expression to the principles of labour market transparency and migrant workers’ right to change employers. A new flexible work permit system had been established, allowing migrant workers to obtain work permits on an individual and direct basis without being linked to an employer, as well as to have access to employment insurance without discrimination based on nationality. Migrant workers’ freedom to join unions was also guaranteed by this system. Moreover, domestic workers were now covered by the Labour Law’s basic provisions, including by the principles concerning labour contracts, protection of wages and annual leave.

The BCCI, as a party to the Tripartite Agreement of 2012 and the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014, had followed all developments and progress made in implementing the agreements, such as the reinstatement of 98 per cent of the dismissed workers. The speaker welcomed the efforts made by the ILO and its Governing Body in supporting the implementation of the agreements and the cooperation between the social partners. The involvement of Bahrain’s employers in the efforts made with a view to reinstating the dismissed workers was commendable. Employers had covered insurance premiums during the unemployment period, an initiative which went beyond the above-referred Agreements. The national employer representatives, through intensive meetings and constructive dialogue in the national tripartite committee formed to follow up the implementation of these agreements, had contributed to overcoming the difficulties generated by the settlement of all the dismissal cases which occurred in 2011. There had been no reports of discrimination against workers who had returned to work.

With respect to the Committee of Experts’ observations on the issue of migrant workers, he emphasized the absence of cases of discrimination among workers of different nationalities or categories. The private sector had succeeded in achieving rapid growth by providing jobs for migrant workers with stable working conditions and without discrimination. As for sexual harassment at the workplace, the existing legal instruments addressing this issue were sufficient to provide protection. The BCCI had committed itself to allowing migrant workers to move freely from one employer to another, in accordance with existing law.

The speaker encouraged the Government and the national workers’ representatives to continue holding fruitful tripartite meetings, which would bring about further initiatives and actions promoting decent work opportunities, achieving equality and combatting discrimination in accordance with national legislation and international labour standards. He welcomed the resumption of development cooperation programmes between the Government and other stakeholders.

The Worker member of Bahrain underlined the importance of social dialogue. The collaboration between the GFBTU and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) had been crucial to defend the rights of workers and showed that the ILO was the best agency to promote social justice and achieve equality for workers in Bahrain. He welcomed the efforts of the ILO Director-General, who had reaffirmed the right of workers to proper representation. With regard to discrimination, five elements were to be highlighted.

First, a project entitled “1912” initiated in 2009 for the reinstatement of university graduates, had been interrupted in 2011, following the unjustified dismissal of 63 university graduate girls based on their political views, and at the same time recruited other graduates based on their loyalty to the Government. Second, the Government had encountered obstacles in the implementation of the Tripartite Agreement of 2012 and the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014, on the basis of which the complaint filed in 2011 under article 26 of the ILO Constitution had been withdrawn. On 28 May 2017, after a two-year hiatus, and following repeated calls from the GFBTU, the national tripartite committee established to implement the Tripartite Agreements at the national level had been restored. Also on the same day, the Deputy Minister of Labour gave the GFBTU representative a list of dismissed workers to be reinstated in their jobs, which demonstrated that the tripartite agreement had not been finalized. Third, workers in the public sector were encountering discrimination. A Government Decree of 2002 was still in force, despite repeated calls for its repeal. It deprived thousands of public sector employees of their right to organize. Fourth, since the 2011 complaint, the Government had dissolved free trade unions and had imposed parallel trade unions at the local and international levels. The GFBTU had been hindered from meeting with international experts when international meetings were planned. For instance, the Government had attempted to modify the composition of the delegation of Bahrain to the International Labour Conference. Despite ILO supervision, many programmes had been impeded. The Decent Work Programme in Bahrain had been frozen by the Government. Fifth, the GFBTU had called for the rectification of the imbalanced labour market and the implementation of the 2012 and 2014 Tripartite Agreements. Legislation that protected against discrimination based on gender and nationality was welcomed as it upheld the rights of workers, especially migrant workers. In the food industry, there had been cases of girls forced to engage in prostitution and cases where the workers were paid only in food.

The speaker expressed doubts with regard to the possibility for migrant workers to file a complaint and denounced the absence of appropriate legislation, as well as the lack of implementation of the Tripartite Agreement of 2012 and the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014. The Government was called upon once again to implement the agreements. The Government had delayed this implementation, despite ILO supervision. The decision adopted by the Ministry of Labour providing for the reinstatement of workers had still not been applied. The representatives of the GFBTU were not allowed to participate in meetings at the ILO Office in Beirut, and workers were banned from organizing at their workplace, which led to a further deprivation of their rights.

Employer organizations targeted workers who tried to establish trade unions at the workplace under the GFBTU umbrella, and forced other workers to establish trade unions under the other Federation placed under Government supervision.

The Government member of Malta, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Norway and Serbia recalled the EU’s engagement in promoting the universal ratification and implementation of the ILO fundamental Conventions, as part of its Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy. The case had already been discussed by the ILO Governing Body, following a complaint filed by Workers’ delegates under article 26 of the ILO Constitution. Pursuant to the allegations presented in the complaint, suspensions and other sanctions had been imposed on trade union leaders and members, in retaliation for the peaceful demonstrations of February 2011 that had called for economic and social change. In March 2012, a Tripartite Agreement had been reached under the auspices of the ILO and a national tripartite committee had been created. Updated information should be provided regarding the settlement of the cases covered by the tripartite agreement, in particular in relation to the reinstatements and financial compensation of the workers that had been dismissed. Moreover, the Labour Law did not cover domestic work and similar jobs, which were mainly held by migrant workers. In addition, the law did not provide a clear and comprehensive definition of discrimination in employment and occupation. The Government was urged, in line with the observation of the Committee of Experts, to include a definition of discrimination covering all workers in all aspects of employment and prohibiting both direct and indirect discrimination, on the basis of all the grounds covered by the Convention. Civil servants also had to be protected against discrimination, including through the amendment of the Legislative Decree regarding the civil service. Furthermore, migrant workers were particularly exposed to discrimination in employment and occupation, and within this specific group, domestic workers, mostly women, were especially vulnerable. As domestic work was often viewed as a private matter, there were no precise legislative or administrative provisions regulating the relationship between domestic workers and their employers, which exposed them to abuses. The Government was urged to continue its efforts to raise awareness, and to take additional measures to protect migrant workers and ensure their access to complaint mechanisms. The speaker noted with interest the process initiated by the Government to abolish the kafala system. The Government was called upon to ensure that any regulation of the right of migrant workers to change employer did not impose conditions or limitations that would increase the migrants’ dependency on their employers. Lastly, although prohibited in the Penal Code, sexual harassment in the workplace was not regulated under the Labour Law. Given the sensitivity of the issue, difficulties relating to the burden of proof and the limited range of behaviours covered under the Penal Code, the Government was called upon to include additional provisions in the labour law or the civil law, to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, provide remedies to victims and establish dissuasive sanctions for perpetrators.

The Government member of Kuwait, speaking on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), noted his appreciation for the Government’s efforts to guarantee the rights of workers regardless of their category or nationality, and to create an environment of justice and equality, free from discrimination. He welcomed the practical initiatives launched by the Government in collaboration with other relevant partners, such as: the labour market management system, in cooperation with the social partners; establishing conditions allowing migrant workers to freely change employers and allowing those subject to exploitation or unfair working conditions to obtain work permits without being tied to a specific employer; the inclusion of all workers in unemployment insurance plans, without discrimination on the basis of nationality; the freedom to join trade unions guaranteed by law to all without discrimination; the inclusion of domestic workers’ working conditions in the Labour Law; and the other achievements praised in the report of the Committee of Experts. The speaker also expressed appreciation for the efforts made by the Government to settle the claims of the persons dismissed in February and March 2011, its commitment to implementing the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014, and the reinstatement of the dismissed workers with the support of the social partners. In addition to this remarkable achievement, and as a result of fruitful social dialogue and of the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014, the continuation of pension rights and the obligation of companies to pay employees’ premiums throughout the dismissal period had been secured. The Government had undertaken several initiatives to protect migrant workers, such as ensuring free access to complaint mechanisms and to the judiciary, and providing protection in the private sector under the Labour Law. On behalf of the GCC, the speaker welcomed these efforts to combat discrimination, achieve equality and justice for workers and regulate the labour market, and trusted that this progress would continue. Reaffirming support for continued tripartite dialogue and initiatives promoting decent work opportunities, equality and non-discrimination in accordance with national legislation and international labour standards, he called upon the ILO to intensify its development cooperation programmes and thereby contribute to strengthening the commitment of GCC member States to the application of international labour standards.

The Employer member of the United Arab Emirates noted with great satisfaction the steps taken by the Government in protecting workers and providing them with decent working conditions. The measures adopted by the Government to implement the Convention included the enactment of the Labour Law. The provisions on the relationship between employers and workers did not distinguish between a national and a migrant worker or between men and women, and prohibited discrimination in regard to wages. Furthermore, all workers benefited from the unemployment insurance system, without discrimination on account of nationality. The Government had also created a number of complaint mechanisms, available to workers in the private and public sectors.

With regard to sexual harassment, section 107 of the Labour Law provided for the dismissal of workers or employees who violated public morals. This legislation afforded protection against sexual harassment by word or deed. Turning to the protection of migrant workers, the Government had created a special unit, the first in the region, to support and protect migrant workers according to international standards. The unit included a shelter centre, where integrated services were provided to migrant workers who had been victims of abuse. On the implementation of the Tripartite Agreement of 2012 and the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014, the Government had, according to its indications, succeeded in settling more than 98 per cent of the cases of dismissals in the aftermath of the events of February and March 2011. Moreover, the Government had ensured the reinstatement of the workers concerned without prejudice to their acquired rights and pension benefits, and most major companies had voluntarily covered all insurance contributions during the period of absence from work. This initiative had benefitted the workers and had contributed to the rebuilding of trust between workers and employers.

The speaker concluded that these steps reflected the genuine will of the Government to establish a working environment that protected the dignity of workers and enabled employers to cooperate with all parties. The measures adopted to combat discrimination evidenced the efforts undertaken by the Government to offer migrant workers working conditions equal to those of nationals. The Committee of Experts was called upon to acknowledge the Government’s progress in implementing the Tripartite Agreement of 2012 and the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014, as well as in prohibiting discrimination in employment and occupation in the country.

The Worker member of Norway, speaking on behalf of the trade unions of the Nordic countries, was pleased to note that the delegation from the GFBTU had arrived in Geneva, following the lifting of its travel ban. Seventy per cent of the workforce of Bahrain was composed of migrant workers, who were exploited and deprived of their principal economic and social rights. As underlined by the Committee of Experts, the Labour Law excluded domestic workers from the scope of the non-discrimination provisions. This was unacceptable and made domestic workers even more vulnerable to exploitation. She deplored the remaining limitations on the possibility for migrant workers to change employers. The very low number of requests for transfers of employers accepted by the LMRA shared by the Government was concerning. Thousands of workers had not been paid salaries for many months, a situation that had deeply affected the workers concerned and their families abroad who were waiting for remittances. The previous year, thousands of migrant workers had engaged in a strike over non-payment of their salaries, and more recently, large numbers of construction workers had protested over unpaid wages. According to the GFBTU, no major progress had been made on the issue of wage arrears. The Migrant Workers Protection Society (MWPS) had been supplying food and emergency kits to the affected workers living in labour camps. The speaker fully supported the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and urged the Government to take urgent action to ensure the payment of wages. In the absence of effective measures of protection against discrimination, including access to remedies, Bahrain’s labour legislation had to ensure the legal protection of all workers, particularly of migrant workers. The Government should exert pressure on companies to ensure their compliance with the legislation in force to protect the rights of all workers. The Government was urged to implement the Tripartite Agreement of 2012, as well as the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014, and to reinstate the workers dismissed during the peaceful demonstrations.

The Government member of Egypt appreciated the steps taken by the Government, notably the legislation enacted, the measures adopted concerning sexual harassment, such as the establishment of the SCW, and the measures taken to ensure the protection of migrant workers against discrimination in employment. He encouraged the Government to undertake more efforts to ensure compliance with the Convention and make use of the technical assistance of the Office in this regard.

The Worker member of Tunisia shared the views of the Worker members and the Worker member of Bahrain concerning violations of the Convention. In the absence of appropriate national legislation, Bahrain’s ratification of the Convention was meaningless. Laws intended to apply the Convention in practice did not meet its requirements. Workers in the country were discriminated against because of their nationality, sex, religious affiliation, opinions, status in the country or relations with the ruling authorities. Foreign workers and women were victims of discrimination. Workers were paying dearly for the fall in oil prices, which had led to higher taxes and inflation. The situation with regard to individual liberties and freedom of association had deteriorated since 2010. There had been cases of trade unionists being detained or dismissed.

The Government member of Bangladesh noted the Government’s efforts to address the comments of the Committee of Experts and to improve working conditions, particularly with regard to protecting workers from sexual harassment. The Government’s initiatives to ensure a transparent labour market management system, including the free movement of expatriate workers, were welcome. Moreover, it was encouraging that all workers, including domestic workers, were covered by the Government’s unemployment insurance scheme. He also appreciated the progress made by the Government and the social partners in the national tripartite committee in addressing the issues raised in the complaint. The ongoing social dialogue should be encouraged, as it was crucial for the enforcement of national legislation, the promotion of decent work and the fight against all forms of discrimination. The speaker encouraged the ILO to provide technical assistance to the Government with a view to achieving sustainable compliance with international labour standards. He hoped that the Conference Committee would take into account the significant efforts undertaken to address the issues raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom, speaking also on behalf of Education International, recalled that, after the Arab Spring marches of 2011, the leaders of the Bahrain Teachers Association had been accused of political activism and arrested, and the union itself had been dissolved. Its President, Mr Mahdi Abu Dheeb, had been imprisoned and only released after five years, following significant international pressure, with a travel ban imposed against him, which prevented him from speaking freely. She emphasized that discrimination was still firmly in place. Teachers unions and other public sector unions remained banned. Many teachers involved in the peaceful protests had been discriminated against and dismissed. Contrary to previous statements, 120 teachers who had lost their jobs and livelihoods had still not been reinstated. There might be many more, as the current illegal status of the Bahrain Teachers Association gave rise to a general fear that prevented people from speaking out. Instead of reinstating the dismissed teachers, the Government had recruited about 9,000 teachers from other Arab States. In contrast to its usual practice, the Government applied a different treatment to these expatriate teachers, granting them a fast-tracked route to employment as well as a lighter workload and employing them on more favourable terms and conditions. There was also clear evidence of systemic discrimination against Shia public sector workers in terms of recruitment and conditions of employment. In her view, the situation had not improved since the Committee’s previous discussion of this case. The steps agreed upon through tripartite discussions had not been taken by the Government, and Bahraini teachers still faced continued discrimination in access to employment and conditions of work, and in the exercise of their fundamental right to freedom of association.

The Government member of Pakistan welcomed the steps taken by the Government and its constructive engagement with the supervisory mechanisms of the ILO. While the Committee of Experts underlined that the Labour Law did not cover all forms of discrimination and did not provide sufficient protection against sexual harassment, it did not point out any serious violations regarding these two points. According to the explanations provided by the Government, however, the national legislation defined and prohibited discrimination based on all the grounds enumerated in the Convention and ensured protection against sexual harassment. The speaker appreciated that the Government allowed the free mobility of expatriate workers, combatted human trafficking, covered all workers under insurance schemes and included domestic workers under the main provisions of the Labour Law. Moreover, irrespective of their nationality, all workers had the right to join trade unions and go on strike to defend their legitimate interests. The speaker also welcomed the efforts made in collaboration with the social partners and the work done by the national tripartite committee to resolve more than 98 per cent of the cases of dismissals related to the events of February and March 2011 as well as the initiatives taken by the major companies with regard to insurance contributions. Finally, he encouraged the Government to continue social dialogue and invited the ILO to provide more technical assistance in the region to support member States in their efforts to comply with labour standards.

The Worker member of the United States stressed that following the popular uprisings of 2011, the Government had revoked the citizenship of hundreds of workers and activists, in clear violation of the Convention, by way of ministerial orders. In 2014, the Government had amended the citizenship laws to grant the Ministry of the Interior the authority to revoke the citizenship of individuals who had failed in their “duty of loyalty” to the State. While the newly stateless activists could appeal the decision, Human Rights Watch reported that the court system had failed to provide fair trials and impartial verdicts. The revocation of the citizenship of political dissidents by the Government had had significant consequences for trade unionists. Workers who had lost their citizenship had also lost their jobs, their housing, their children’s right to education, access to social security and other government benefits. Children born after the Government had revoked their parents’ citizenship had also lost their right to Bahraini citizenship. Moreover, in October 2015, the Government had issued a legislative royal decree that had deprived these persons and their beneficiaries of their pensions with immediate effect.

The speaker provided the examples of two activists whose citizenship had recently been revoked, in order to illustrate the situation. Habib Darwish had remained in the country, awaiting the decision from the court of appeal, at constant risk of deportation and unable to obtain a work permit. The Government had accused him of causing “damage to the security of the State”. Although he had worked for his employer for 25 years, during which he had been contributing to his pension fund and to social insurance, he was prohibited from accessing his retirement benefits. Hussain Kheirallah, had allegedly been forced to leave the country immediately and was deported to Lebanon, without being given an opportunity to say goodbye to his family, who had lost access to social insurance and to his pension fund. Mr Kheirallah believed the Government had revoked his citizenship because of the following: (1) he reported that he was tortured after providing first aid to demonstrators; (2) he believed the Government wanted to send a message to Bahrainis of Persian descent; and (3) in retaliation for his union activism. Many workers had lost their retirement savings, nationality, jobs, housing, and, in some cases, their families because of their political opinions, their union activism, or their ethnicity.

The Government representative indicated that he disagreed with the statement of the Worker member of Bahrain concerning the establishment of a trade union by the Government and denied that the Government had imposed any new trade unions. Concerning the construction company that had faced financial difficulties leading to wage arrears, wages had been paid without discrimination between local and migrant workers. This payment had occurred after an agreement had been signed between the private company concerned and the Ministry of Finance. The news regarding the payment of wages would soon be published in the newspapers.

With regard to sexual harassment, the Committee of Experts had mentioned that this issue was only regulated in one provision of the Penal Code. However, sexual harassment was also regulated under sections 81 and 107 of the Labour Law and paragraph 33 of the Legislative Decree regarding the civil service. These provisions provided that the worker found guilty of sexual harassment should be dismissed. A copy of these laws was at the disposal of the Committee.

Concerning discrimination, section 39 of the Labour Law prohibited discrimination in wages based on sex, origin, language, religion or creed, and there were no cases of discrimination in practice. The Government had taken note of all the interventions. All interventions made in the Committee would be taken into consideration by the Government to improve the situation of the labour market and promote decent work in Bahrain. The Government was committed to respecting the conclusions adopted by the Committee, to improving the definitions contained in the Labour Law and to ensuring compliance with the Convention, in particular with respect to the definitions of discrimination and sexual harassment, the protection of migrant workers and the free movement of the labour force.

The Government welcomed the decision of the Governing Body that it provide information to the Committee of Experts on the application of the Convention and the implementation of the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014. The Government was committed to providing information in this respect in its report for 2018 and to achieving results with ILO technical assistance. The Ministry of Labour and Social Development was discussing and coordinating with the ILO Regional Office in Beirut in this regard.

In conclusion, the speaker hoped that the Committee would take into consideration the achievements of the Government and emphasized that the Government was fully ready to cooperate with the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts in providing all the information requested.

The Worker members emphasized the fact that the explanations and clarifications provided by the Government representative strengthened their conviction that the Government was determined to ensure observance of the Convention. However, specific action was indispensable. It was essential that the Government fully implement the 2012 and 2014 Agreements, in accordance with a precise timetable, and that it supply information on the measures taken in this regard. It also needed to make the necessary legislative amendments to cover all the grounds of discrimination listed in the Convention and to prohibit indirect discrimination. The Government should also provide information on the application of the legislation and take the necessary steps to extend it to all sectors. In particular, the discrimination which existed between the private and public sectors had to stop. Special attention needed to be given to migrant workers so as not to impose discriminatory conditions on them which would increase their dependence. More information should be supplied by the Government on the action taken vis-à-vis migrant workers to inform them of their rights and on the activities of the Labour Market Regulatory Authority relating to immigration.

The Worker members encouraged the Government to draw up a national action plan for combating all forms of discrimination, availing themselves of ILO technical assistance. They also asked for a direct contacts mission to be sent, in view of the situation described in several interventions made within the Committee. The Government should base its action on the principle that the straightest, shortest and surest path – one from which no government should ever depart – was to ensure equality before the law.

The Employer members welcomed the Government’s commitment to ensure compliance with the Convention. Regretting the Government’s inactivity in reporting the measures taken to implement the Tripartite Agreement of 2012 and the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014, they encouraged the Government to report to the Committee of Experts in this respect. Certain issues required legislative attention in terms of drafting new provisions or amending existing ones. The Employer members encouraged the Government to ensure that the definition of discrimination protected workers both in the private and public sectors, included all prohibited grounds for discrimination required by the Convention and provided protection of equality of opportunity and treatment in employment, including for women. They also encouraged the Government to ensure that sexual harassment was adequately prohibited in national labour legislation and to provide clarifications as to existing complaint mechanisms in this area.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral statements made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted the Government’s stated commitment to ensure compliance with Convention No. 111. The Committee noted with concern the Government’s failure to provide information to the Committee of Experts in regard to measures related to implement the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee called upon the Government of Bahrain to:

- report on the measures taken to implement the commitments contained in the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014 in connection with the Government’s efforts to comply with Convention No. 111 to the Committee of Experts for its November 2017 session;

- ensure that legislation covers all recognized prohibited grounds of discrimination set out in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, in both direct and indirect forms, and undertake measures to ensure that discrimination in employment and occupation is prohibited in law and practice;

- ensure that migrant workers as well as domestic workers are included in the protection of anti-discrimination law;

- ensure equality of opportunity and treatment of employment of women;

- ensure sexual harassment is prohibited in the Labour Code and provide information regarding how complaints of this nature may be advanced to the Committee of Experts for its November 2017 session.

In this regard, the Committee calls upon the Government to accept an ILO direct contacts mission to address the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee requested that the Government reports in detail on the measures taken to implement these recommendations to the next meeting of the Committee of Experts in November 2017.

The Government representative welcomed the conclusions and assured the Committee of his Government’s commitment to present a report for examination by the Committee of Experts at its next session. As to the recommendation for a direct contacts mission to visit the country, the Government representative sought clarification as to the terms of reference of this visit and in which way it differed from a technical team visit which his Government had already accepted. He concluded by assuring the Committee of his Government’s readiness to cooperate with the ILO.

The representative of the Secretary-General invited the Government representative to contact the secretariat after the closing of the session to obtain detailed information on the direct contacts mission, including its terms of reference.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the observations of the General Federation of Bahrain Trade Unions (GFBTU) received by the Office on 31 August 2021 and 31 August 2022.

Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention. Discrimination on the basis of religious grounds. The Committee recalls that previously, in its reply to the GFBTU’s and the International Trade Union Confederation’s (ITUC) observations alleging discrimination in employment and occupation – mainly in the public sector - against citizens belonging to one religious’ community (Muslim workers of Shia “obedience” or Shia Muslims), the Government had merely described the legal framework in place concerning protection against discrimination in general. The Committee had therefore requested the Government to provide information on the situation in practice with regard to discrimination on the basis of religious grounds. In its report, after recalling that these kinds of general allegations needs evidence based on existing cases or events, the Government indicates that to date neither the Ministry of Labour and Social Development (MLSD) nor any of the different bodies competent in this regard, including the courts, have received any complaints alleging discrimination in employment and occupation related to religious discrimination. Between 2019-2021, the MLSD has handled a limited number of complaints alleging discrimination in employment and occupation and they concerned recruitment advertisements for jobs restricted to men only or to certain nationalities. As regards recruitment in the public and private sectors, the Government affirms that job vacancies do not include a reference to religion, doctrine or community affiliation, or any condition that the job applicant should be a member of one of the communities. Finally, the Government refers to: (1) the existence the International King Hamade Centre for peaceful coexistence which seeks to disseminate peace, and rejects hatred and sectarianism, (2) the creation of a King Hamad Chair for Interfaith Dialogue and Peaceful Coexistence at La Sapienza University (Italy) which offers large possibilities to students in different university phases for research and study in tolerance and religious sciences, as well as in other aspects of social knowledge; and (3) the signing in 2017 of the ‘Declaration of Kingdom of Bahrain’ as an international document which promotes religious freedoms, in addition to the ratification of several treaties rejecting violence, extremism and discrimination. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any specific measures taken or envisaged to promote actively respect and tolerance for religious minorities, to combat any discrimination and stereotypical attitudes towards religious minorities and to ensure that authorities and the general public are informed that discrimination against religious minorities is unacceptable, including in education, training, employment and occupation. The Committee also asks the Government to provide, if available, detailed information on the education and employment situation of minority groups, including religious minority groups, disaggregated by sex, in both the public and private sectors, and at the various levels of responsibility.

The “1912” case. This concerns a group of university graduates predominantly consisting of women (95 per cent) who were hired in 2009 as trainees on fixed-term contracts by various government ministries and institutions with the expectation that they would be given priority in upcoming recruitment opportunities but who were dismissed in the wake of the 2011 protests. According to ITUC, although a number of them were able to obtain permanent positions, Shia Muslim trainees who had participated in the 2011 protests, as well as in other protests against discrimination, were dismissed. The Government indicates that, by September 2016, the MLSD succeeded in integrating 1449 graduates, i.e., approximately 75 per cent of the total number of those registered in the list in the public and private sectors (the recruitment of 940 trainees in the public sector and the recruitment of 509 trainees in the private sector). Furthermore, later on the employment contracts were extended for another group by granting them all the job benefits including their participation in social insurance schemes. This group was granted the right to continue employment or choose any other option if that was their wish. As for the remaining number, some of the graduates became entrepreneurs, while MLSD nominated the remaining persons to suitable jobs. The Committee takes note of this information.

Article 2. National equality policy with a view to eliminating discrimination based on race, colour, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin. The Committee takes note of the addition of a section 2 bis of Labour Law No.36 of 2012, as amended by Legislative Decree No.59 of 2018 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, origin, language, religion or creed. It also notes the adoption of the National Plan for the Advancement of Bahraini Women for 2013–2022, as well as the awareness-raising campaigns undertaken by the Bahraini Supreme Council for Women to promote gender equality in the society. The Committee notes the GFBTU’s observation that Bahrain has yet to declare and pursue a clear national policy designed to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation and notes the fact that the country Decent Work Country Programme developed jointly with the social partners under the auspice of ILO, which could have been used to advance the formulation of the national equality policy, has never been implemented. The Committee wishes to recall that the implementation of a national equality policy presupposes the adoption of a range of specific and concrete measures, including in most cases the need for a clear and comprehensive legislative framework, and ensuring that the right to equality and non-discrimination is effective in practice; proactive measures are also required to address the underlying causes of discrimination and de facto inequalities resulting from deeply entrenched discrimination. In that regard, the Committee wishes to point out that Article 2 of the Convention leaves considerable flexibility to each country regarding the most appropriate methods from the point of view of their nature and timing. From the information provided by the Government and the legislative framework in force, the Committee is of the view that the country is in the process of developing a national equality policy, in particular a gender policy. However, it observes that the national equality policy being developed is lacking in certain aspects, mainly because all the grounds prohibited by the Convention are not covered by the country anti-discrimination labour legislation and also the persistence of certain discrepancies between the legal framework and the requirements of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government:

• (i)to formulate, in consultation with workers’ and employers’ organizations, a comprehensive national equality policy directed at addressing discrimination in employment and occupation based on all the grounds covered by the Convention as a minimum, by methods appropriate to national conditions and practice; and
• (ii)to provide its comments regarding the alleged non application of the DWCP signed by all parties.

The Committee notes that in its latest observation, the GFBTU affirms that a large proportion of Bahrain’s population suffers from marginalization due to discrimination in employment and occupation on several grounds such as belief, political opinion, race, ethnic origin, etc, in particular with regard to its access to the educational scholarships system, as the decisions are taken on the grounds of belief, political opinion, ethnic origin, etc. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article 3(a). Cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. With regard to any cooperation or consultation undertaken with employers’ and workers’ organizations to promote non-discrimination and equality in employment and occupation in practice, the Government highlights the solid relationship between the three social partners. According to the Government, the MLSD holds bilateral and trilateral meetings on a regular basis with officials of the Bahrain Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI), the Bahrain Free Labour Unions Federation (BFTU) and the General Federation of Bahrain Trade Unions (GFBTU). In addition, the representatives of the three social partners participate in tripartite administrative boards in respect of a few government institutions, which is a good example of social dialogue between the relevant partners. In this regard, the Committee notes the observations of the GFBTU calling for the establishment of a national mechanism where all concerned parties are represented, with a view to reviewing the application in practice of the anti-discrimination legislation but also to tackle other critical points for the social partners. The Committee recalls that the Convention acknowledges that employers’ and workers’ organizations have a key role to play in promoting the acceptance and observance of national policies and plans, including of a national policy on equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation. The Committee asks the Government to provide concrete examples of how it seeks the co-operation of employers’ and workers’ organizations in promoting the acceptance and observance of this policy.

Enforcement. The Committee noteswith interest that in 2021, the Labour Law (Amendment) Decree No.16 of 2021 established a special Unit within the Labour Complaint Division of the Ministry to receive workers’ complaints related to discrimination, on the ground of origin, language, religion or belief in addition to setting in place special procedures for the examination of such complaints and for taking the necessary action. A large awareness-raising campaign was organized to inform the public about the Labour Complaint Division Unit and the complaints procedures available in the case of discrimination at the workplace. The Government also indicates that four cases were reported in 2021 related to disparities in wages based on discrimination on the grounds of origin and gender. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the activities of the Labour Complaint Division Unit, including the number of complaints received, their outcome and the remedies awarded. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the number of discrimination cases detected by the labour inspectorate or brought to its attention, as well as their outcome (i.e., sanctions imposed, and remedies granted).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the observations of the General Federation of Bahrain Trade Unions (GFBTU) received by the Office on 24 September 2020 and 31 August 2022.

Article 1 of the Convention. Discrimination on the basis of political opinion. The Committee notes that the Government affirms that all remaining individual dismissal cases related to the 2011 events have been resolved. The Government refers to its communication to the ILO Director-General dated 10 June 2019 in which it explains that, out of the 55 outstanding cases, 44 individuals were reinstated in their jobs in the private sector and 11 workers accepted financial compensation in lieu of reinstatement in their previous jobs, which amounted to US$1.417 million. The Government further indicates that the Ministry of Labour and Social Development (MLSD) received a communication dated 3 June 2019 from the GFBTU indicating its acceptance of this final settlement. In light of the above, and the fact that the MLSD has not registered any complaints from workers who were reinstated, the Government considers that the cases of the workers dismissed in the wake of the 2011 events and mentioned in the Tripartite Agreements of 2011 and 2014 are closed. The Committee notes however that, in its observations, the GFBTU states that the dismissed workers who were finally reinstated did not receive financial compensation for their unfair dismissal, except in the case of workers from the University of Bahrain and the Bahrain Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI) as already indicated in the Committee’s previous observation. The Committee recalls that, under the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014, the Government had agreed with the social partners to refer to a tripartite committee the cases which relate to financial claims or compensation that have not been settled and, in the absence of consensus, to refer them to the judiciary. According to the GFBTU no such committee has been set up so far. The Government points out that, despite this alleged failure to set up a tripartite committee to monitor discrimination in employment and occupation in the country, the MLSD and the social partners have been able to settle many pending issues and restates that all avenues for collaboration are open to the GFBTU to discuss its views on this issue and any other issues through the joint bilateral committee. The Committee notes that according to the GFBTU, while some dismissed workers received financial compensation, others have not yet received it. In light of the above, the Committee asks the Government: (i) to clarify whether the tripartite committee referred to in the Supplementary Tripartite Agreementof 2014 has been established; and (ii) to provide information on the number of the outstanding cases mentioned by the GFBTU and the steps taken to resolve them.

Education International. The Committee notes with regret the absence of information on the outstanding cases of teachers dismissed in the wake of the 2011 events and not yet reinstated, in particular the case of the 15 teachers who were members of the now dissolved Bahrain Teachers Association and who are allegedly still unable to obtain employment in private schools, ten years after the events, due to a lack of clearance from the Ministry of Education. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to examine, without delay, the case of the 15 dismissed teachers and to ensure that if appropriate they receive compensation in respect of their dismissals and that they are cleared to return to their jobs in the education sector, if they still wish to do so.

Act No. 58/2006 on the protection of society from acts of terrorism. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statement that the aforementioned law was formulated to protect society from terrorism, extremism and other phenomena which destabilize social peace and safety and therefore it does not fall under the umbrella of the application of the Convention or the issues which are of concern to the ILO. While recalling what is stated in its 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions (paragraphs 805, 832 and 833),the Committee reiterates its request to the Government: (i) to ensure that the application of Act No. 58/2006 does not in practice infringe the right of workers to be protected from discrimination on grounds of political opinion, as required by the Convention; and (ii) to provide information on the impact of the application of the Act in the fields of employment and occupation, as well as on any cases brought before the courts against any worker alleged to be “abusing the social media”, indicating the charges brought and the outcome.

Article 1(1)(a) and (3). Grounds of discrimination and aspects of employment and occupation. Private and public sectors. Migrant workers, including domestic workers. The Committee notes the introduction by Legislative Decree No. 59 of 2018 of an addition to section 2 – section 2 bis – to Labour Code No. 36 of 2012 which states that: “Discrimination on the grounds of sex, origin, language, religion or belief against workers who are governed by the provisions of this law is hereby prohibited.” The Committee recalls that section 2 of the Labour Code excludes domestic workers and persons regarded as such from the scope of the protection of the Labour Code, except for certain provisions. Domestic workers are covered by the “Tripartite Domestic Workers contract” which regulates the relationship between the recruitment agency, the employer (the household) and the migrant domestic worker, the aim of which is to prevent the exploitation of domestic workers and it is expected to help guarantee the rights of migrant domestic workers. The Committee notes that new section 2 bis has been added to the list of the provisions of the Labour Code that apply to domestic workers and persons regarded as such (such as for example, sections 6, 19, 20, 21, 37, 38, 40, 48, 49, 58, 116, 183, 185 and Parts Twelve and Thirteen). The Government indicates that, following the adoption of this amendment, it has launched an information campaign through messages disseminated via the MLSD website, social media networks related to the Ministry, several awareness-raising lectures at the Ministry and in workplaces, with the embassies of labour-exporting countries and a number of civil society institutions and other bodies. It has also set up a hotline which can be contacted to request clarification and replies to any query.

The Committee welcomes the introduction of this formal general prohibition of discrimination in the Labour Code and its extension to domestic workers and persons regarded as such. The Committee notes however that, despite its previous observations, this amendment is still lacking as: (1) the new section 2 bis of the Labour Code does not mention all of the grounds of discrimination formally listed in the Convention; (2) the Labour Code still does not provide a comprehensive definition of discrimination, as well as a prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination, with respect to all aspects of employment (in other words, access to vocational training, to employment and to particular occupations, and terms and conditions of employment). Once again, the Committee asks the Government to amend both the Labour Code and the Civil Service Instructions No. 16/2016 to provide for: (i) a comprehensive definition of discrimination which should include direct and indirect discrimination and cover the seven grounds listed in the Convention; and (ii) protection against discrimination in all forms of employment and occupation.

Discrimination based on sex. Sexual harassment. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Decree No. 59 of 2018 amending Labour Law No. 36 of 2012 formally prohibits sexual harassment in the workplace, by adding under Chapter 17 on “Sanctions” a section 192 bis which provides that: “A sentence of imprisonment of a maximum of one year or a maximum fine of 100 dinars [approximately US$265] shall be imposed on any worker who, in the course of, or for reasons of employment, sexually harasses a co-worker by a gesture, verbal or physical conduct, or by any other means. A sentence of imprisonment for a minimum term of six months or a minimum fine of 500 dinars [US$1,326] and a maximum fine of 1,000 dinars [US$2,653] shall be imposed whenever such a crime is committed by the employer or by his representative”. In that regard, the Committee notes that although section 192 bis provides for sanctions against sexual harassment, sexual harassment is not formally defined in the labour legislation. The Penal Code prescribes the sanctions available in the case of sexual harassment but does not include a clear and comprehensive definition of sexual harassment and only addresses cases where a worker is subject to sexual harassment from a co-worker, not when the perpetrator is a representative of the employer or a third party. The Committee takes note of the Government’s statements that: (1) issues related to exposing a worker to discrimination by another colleague at work cannot be included in the Labour Law which only governs the relationship between employers, or their representatives, and their workers; (2) a worker victim of discrimination by a co-worker or a client should use other laws and regulations, provided the allegations are considered to be a crime or a misdemeanour towards individuals; and (3) this worker can submit his/her complaint before administrative bodies (MLSD, Civil Service Diwan, the General Secretariat for Grievances, the National Institution for Human Rights) or the courts. The Committee notes that under the new amendment, discrimination (and implicitly sexual harassment) is criminalized. It also notes that, in response to its previous statement – that a lack of complaints is not always an indicator of an absence of discrimination in practice – the Government affirms that, even if sexual harassment was addressed by the civil or labour law, in addition to the Penal Code, this does not mean that there would be cases of discrimination registered by the competent authorities, in view of: “(1) the legal and legislative progress in the Kingdom of Bahrain, and (2) the advanced cultural and educational levels of the labour force to exercise civil and political rights”. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, although awareness-raising and guidance in this area is a joint responsibility of relevant government bodies, social partners and civil society institutions, the MLSD is considering launching an information campaign to raise awareness. However, the Committee once again strongly urges the Government to take steps to adopt a clear and comprehensive definition and prohibition of sexual harassment. The Committee also asks the Government to provide detailed information on the remedies available to a victim in the event of a proven case of sexual harassment lodged with the various judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative bodies, and on any developments concerning the future awareness-raising campaign against sexual harassment in the world of work. The Committee reminds the Government again that an absence of complaints does not mean that harassment is not occurring.

Article 2. Equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women. Legislation. The Committee notes with interest that Legislative Decree No. 16 of 2021, which amends several sections of the Labour Code, has added a second paragraph to section 39 of the Labour Code which prohibits discrimination in wages between male and female workers for work of equal value.

As regards the presence of Bahraini women in the economic, social and political spheres, the Committee takes notes of the information communicated by the Government, such as, for example, their presence in the legislative authorities (the current Chairperson of the Council of Representatives is a woman, as well as a number of chairs of parliamentary committees), the fact that they are heading important ministries (Minister of Health, Minister of Housing) and that a number of ambassadors are women, and so on. According to the Government, women currently comprise 40 per cent of the total workforce in the public and private sectors which is high compared with labour markets in the Middle East and North Africa region. The Supreme Council for Women – which the Government says plays an important role in the promotion and empowerment of women in society and addresses the various forms of discrimination against them – indicates that the percentage of women in administrative posts has reached 46 per cent and that they are progressively assuming leadership positions on administrative boards and are playing an important role as entrepreneurs and in the ownership of small and medium-sized enterprises. In the last four years, the MLSD has inaugurated recruitment programmes for women to encourage their employment via part-time work and remote working, which have contributed to the recruitment of some 7,000 Bahraini women. As regards training and vocational programmes, the statistics indicate that the percentage of women who benefited from training is quite high: 49 per cent in 2019, 29 per cent in 2020 (reflecting the impact of COVID-19 pandemic) and 60 per cent in 2021. Furthermore, the Government draws the Committee’s attention to the National Plan for the Advancement of the Bahraini Women (2013–2022) which encompasses several pillars aimed at enhancing women’s participation in the labour market, such as focusing on education and training, economic empowerment and lifelong learning. In that regard, the Committee welcomes the information showing that, in the field of education (enrolment in secondary education and at university), the country has nearly closed the gender gap, to 98 per cent (compared with a global average of 95 per cent). As for proactive measures taken or envisaged to address inequality based on societal and traditional reasons, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that Bahraini society is an open society which accepts the presence of women in all posts without exception, in addition to supporting them in their education and in career promotion. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the results achieved following the implementation of the 2013–2022 National Plan, as well as the impact of the above-mentioned measures and initiatives adopted.

Flexi work permit (Flexi permit). The Government recalls that the Flexi permit gives an opportunity to migrant workers in an irregular situation from specific categories to stay and work legally in the country without being tied to an employer (subject to annual fees). It allows them to benefit from health services, as well as from insurance against occupational injuries and to resort to the competent authorities to submit complaints, in addition to the possibility of being under contract with several employers or one employer according to a worker’s desire throughout the period of his/her residence. The Government stresses the efforts made during the COVID-19 pandemic by, for example, not imposing the repatriation of migrant workers during the pandemic and freezing all fees related to the renewal of work permits.

Freedom to transfer to another employer. The Committee notes that, by virtue of Law No. 19 Regulating the Labour Market (2006), a migrant worker has the right to transfer to another employer without the approval of the current employer, after 12 months of employment with the current employer, while taking into account the specific period of 90 days’ notice required. The Government explains that, considering the costs incurred by the employer in recruiting a worker from abroad, this 12-month period during which a worker is legally prohibited from transferring to another employer is reasonable. However, this condition does not apply where a worker has proved that he/she was exposed to exploitation or abuse by an employer such as the non-payment of wages, reduced wages, or a violation of a worker’s legitimate rights in accordance with the Labour Law. In such a case, workers are authorized to transfer to another employer immediately without the approval of their current employer. During the years 2019–21, more than 186,000 workers were transferred with or without the approval of the employer.

The wage protection system (WPS). The Committee recalls that the WPS is a transparent means of securing the timely payment of employee salaries and regulating employer non-compliance, whereby employers are obliged to pay salaries in local currency at least once a month into a locally certified bank account. In that regard, the Government indicates that Ministerial Order No. 22 of 2021 sets down a gradual timeline for the full introduction of this system, starting with enterprises employing more than 500 workers and then to small and medium-sized enterprises. The Committee notes that the legislation also provides that an employer who fails repeatedly to meets their obligation in this regard may in future be denied a work permit for a migrant worker. The Committee takes note of the active steps taken by the Government to ensure better protection for migrant workers in general and in particular during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Noting that the Flexi permit system is only open to restrictive categories of migrant workers and is relatively costly, the Committee encourages the Government to consider reducing the fees and relaxing the eligibility criteria to enable a greater number of migrants to apply for a Flexi permit. It also asks the Government to provide statistical information on the number of migrant workers who have transferred to new employers before the expiry of the contract. The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on the impact of the Tripartite Domestic Workers contract on reducing migrant workers’ vulnerability to exploitation.

Article 5. Special measures of protection for women. The Committee notes with satisfaction the repeal of Ministerial Order No. 32 of 2013 which prohibited women’s employment in specific sectors and occupations in addition to that of Ministerial Order No. 16 of 2013 regarding the occupations in which, and the circumstances under which, the employment of women at night was prohibited. Decrees Nos 50 and 51 of 2021, on night work and occupations, respectively, have lifted restrictions on women’s right to work at night. The Government also indicates that, in addition, several ministerial orders were adopted repealing all previous exceptions relating to women’s employment at night and the prohibition of their employment in some occupations and roles, in undertakings prescribed by the Labour Law. The Government states that, as a consequence, women’s employment has become possible in all economic sectors and in different occupations – without exception – in accordance with the principle enshrined in the Convention. While taking due note of this information, the Committee notes that Decrees Nos 50 and 51 of 2021 do not provide for any protection to ensure that pregnant or breastfeeding women are not obliged to perform work which has been determined by the competent authority to be prejudicial to the health of the mother or the child, or where an assessment has established a significant risk to the mother’s health or that of the child. The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate the measures taken to protect the health of pregnant or breastfeeding workers, as well as the health of their child, in these circumstances.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee notes the observations submitted by the General Federation of Bahrain Trade Union (GFBTU) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received respectively on 30 August and 1 September 2018.

Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention. Discrimination on the basis of religious grounds. Previously, the Committee had asked the Government to provide its comments on the allegations raised by the ITUC, Education International (EI) and the Bahrain Teachers’ Association (BTA) that discrimination on a religious basis is the major form of discrimination in the country and that it is ongoing on a large scale both in the private and the public sectors. The Committee notes that in its observations the GFBTU states that: (i) discrimination on a religious basis is the major form of discrimination in the country; (ii) it occurs on a large scale, both in the private and the public sectors; (iii) there is clear evidence that citizens belonging to one religious community in the country are excluded from employment in the public sector and in nine major companies, largely government-owned, where the best conditions of work are enjoyed (wages, training, healthcare, insurance, loans, scholarships, etc.); and (iv) this group was subject to systematic discrimination prior to the political events of February 2011 but since then discrimination has extended so as to affect recruitment and terms and conditions of employment (in particular in human resources management, information technology, security sectors). In its latest observations, the ITUC reiterates its previous allegation that Muslim workers of Shia “obedience” (Shia Muslims) still suffer from discrimination, in particular in the public sector. The ITUC refers to the “1912” case which concerns a group of university graduates predominantly consisting of women (95 per cent) who were hired in 2009 as trainees on fixed-term contracts by various government ministries and institutions with the expectation that they would be given priority in upcoming recruitment opportunities. Although a number of them were able to obtain permanent positions, Shia Muslim trainees who had participated in the 2011 protests, as well as in other protests against discrimination, were dismissed. According to the ITUC, the Government states that their dismissals were linked to redundancies, while at the same time it continues to recruit workers for the positions previously held by these trainees. The ITUC concludes that discrimination in the public sector is exacerbated by the prohibition of public sector workers organizing (as per Circular No. 1/2003) and therefore preventing them from voicing their grievances about acts of discrimination.

In its report, the Government recalls that, since its ratification, the Convention is considered to be part of applicable national legislation and that the Constitution and National Action Charter are based on equality among citizens in rights and duties. The Government also states that: (i) national legislation enshrines Bahrain’s commitment to justice in applying the law and in ensuring the independence of the judiciary which provides protection to all persons (citizens or foreigners); (ii) the Legislative Decree No. 33/2002 on Trade Unions guarantees freedom of association; (iii) recent steps taken will result in an amendment to the Labour Code No. 36/2012 to include a section formally prohibiting and criminalizing discrimination in relation to all the rights covered by the Labour Code; (iv) Law No. 26/2014 establishes the National Institution for Human Rights (NIHR) the role of which is to promote, develop and protect human rights and to consolidate human rights values and disseminate awareness thereof. The NIHR is the specialized body for dealing with complaints related to human rights violations. Consequently, the Government states that in view of the efforts made by the Kingdom of Bahrain to ensure justice and equality among workers, it considers that the allegations communicated to the Committee by the workers’ organizations are not accurate and it urges the ILO to publish only information based on facts or reliable documents.

The Committee observes that, in its response to the GFBTU’s observations, the Government describes the legal framework in place but fails to provide information on the situation in practice. Although it is necessary for the provisions of national law to be in conformity with the requirements of the Convention, it is also important for the law to be fully and strictly applied in practice. The Committee also notes that, in its concluding observations regarding Bahrain’s initial report on the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) was concerned: (i) by reports that the Shia population has been subjected to restrictions on their rights to freedom of religion or belief (CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1, 26 July 2018, paragraphs 50–51); (ii) that the NIHR lacks sufficient independence to perform its functions (paragraph 8); and (iii) by reports indicating that, in practice, the judiciary is neither fully independent nor impartial (paragraph 44). Recalling that the Convention provides the obligation to eliminate discrimination in employment and occupation both in law and in practice, the Committee asks the Government to take proactive steps to foster respect and tolerance in society of all religious communities and to raise awareness of the existing legislation and mechanisms available for workers who consider that they have been subject to discrimination. It also asks the Government to provide information on its efforts to achieve a balanced representation of workers of different religious beliefs in the public sector including through qualitative research or studies.

Article 2. National equality policy with a view to eliminating discrimination based on race, colour, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin. In response to the Committee’s request for information on the steps taken to adopt a national policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment, with a view to eliminating discrimination on all the grounds prohibited by the Convention, the Government indicates that it has taken many steps to protect workers of all types against discriminatory-related practices. However, the Government confirms that it stands ready to benefit from ILO technical assistance in the preparation of a national policy including by the provision of examples of policies adopted in this area by other member States for guidance. The Committee recalls that the Convention requires ratifying States to declare and pursue a national equality policy, leaving States’ flexibility regarding the adoption of the most appropriate policy. However, the implementation of a national equality policy presupposes the adoption of a range of specific measures, which often consist of a combination of legislative and administrative measures, collective agreements, public policies, affirmative action measures, dispute resolution and enforcement mechanisms, specialized bodies, practical programmes and awareness raising. In addition, the equality policy must be adjusted periodically to take into account newly emerging forms of discrimination for which solutions must be found (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 734–735 and 841–849). Trusting that the ILO will provide the technical assistance requested by the Government, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the active steps it is taking to formulate and implement a national equality policy designed to address discrimination on the basis of all the seven grounds covered by the Convention as a minimum and to promote equality among the public in general.

Article 3(a). Cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. Previously, the Committee had asked the Government to provide information on any consultation undertaken, as well as on any cooperation undertaken, with employers’ and workers’ organizations, with a view to promoting non-discrimination and equality in employment and occupation in practice. In its response, the Government emphasizes its keenness to cooperate with the social partners and promote social dialogue at various levels and to continue its bilateral and tripartite meetings with representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Development (MLSD), the Bahrain Chambers of Trade and Industry (BCCI), the GFBTU and the Bahrain Free Trade Union Federation (BFTU) in order to discuss any negative phenomena and enhance cooperation in maintaining the stability of the local labour market, including in combating discrimination in the labour market and in other areas. In this regard, the Committee notes the observations of the GFBTU recalling that all social partners in Bahrain have a role in achieving the effective implementation of the Convention and, consequently, calling for the establishment of a national mechanism where all concerned parties will be represented, with a view to implementing reviewing the application in practice of the equality of opportunity and treatment policy in respect of employment and occupation. It also notes that, in its meetings with the Direct Contacts Mission (DCM) in September 2018, the GFBTU regretted that there was no functioning tripartite body allowing for the participation of social partners in discussions concerning legislation that is critical to its members prior to submission of the proposed amendments to the National Assembly. The Committee notes that the BCCI also indicated, during its meeting with the DCM, that it had not been consulted prior to the launch of the flexible work permit pilot scheme, which had the potential to harm the business community. Nevertheless, the Committee welcomes the DCM findings that, although the tripartite constituents stated that social dialogue in the country is being hindered by the challenges encountered in the implementation of the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014 adopted under the auspices of the ILO, they all expressed the wish to engage in constructive social dialogue to address other pressing issues. In that regard, the Committee wishes to recall that, where there is an absence of genuine social dialogue, the application of the Convention is seriously hindered. Consequently, the Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of the progress achieved in building constructive social dialogue, in particular through the implementation of the Tripartite Agreements. In the meantime, recalling that the Convention acknowledges that employers’ and workers’ organizations have a key role in promoting the acceptance and observance of national policies and plans, including of a national policy on equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation, the Committee asks the Government to indicate the role of the workers’ and employers’ organizations in the implementation of the Convention as well as on the proposed reforms before their enactment.

Enforcement. Noting the Government’s repeated statement that there are no reported cases of discrimination in the country, the Committee had asked the Government to continue to raise awareness of the relevant legislation and to enhance the capacity of the competent authorities (including judges, labour inspectors and other public officials), in identifying and addressing cases of discrimination and also to examine whether the applicable substantive and procedural provisions, in practice, allow claims to be brought successfully. The Government confirms that it continues to pay attention to the training of labour inspectors and to raise their capacities in carrying out their duties. As regards discrimination in employment and occupation more specifically, the Committee welcomes the information provided that the MLSD is considering creating a special unit within the Labour Complaint Division of the Ministry to receive workers’ complaints related to discrimination, in addition to setting in place special procedures for the examination of such complaints and for taking the necessary action. In this regard, the Committee notes that the ITUC refers to the lack of enforcement mechanisms which renders the labour legislation largely ineffective. Further, it observes that one of the findings of the DCM report (paragraph 102) is that there is low-level awareness as to the procedures for enforcing the prohibitions on discrimination and the remedies available to the victims of discrimination. The Committee asks the Government to take steps to raise awareness of the principles of equality and non-discrimination in employment and occupation and the procedures available and to keep it informed of any progress in the establishment of the special unit that will be dedicated to receiving and dealing with workers’ complaints related to discrimination. In the meantime, noting the Government’s readiness to collaborate with the ILO so as to provide additional training on discrimination in employment and occupation to officials in charge of enforcement, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on any action taken to enhance the capacity of these officials to detect and address discriminatory practices.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee notes the report of the direct contacts mission as well as the observations made by the General Federation of Bahrain Trade Unions (GFBTU) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received respectively on 30 August and 1 September 2018.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 107th Session, May–June 2018)

The Committee notes the discussion in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) of the International Labour Conference, at its 107th Session (June 2018), on the application of the Convention, and the conclusions adopted. The conclusions of the CAS called upon the Government of Bahrain: (i) to provide information on the measures taken to implement the commitments contained in the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014 signed under the auspices of the ILO, concerning the resolution of cases involving suspension, dismissal and other sanctions imposed on trade union members and leaders, following the events of 2011, and to ensure that all the outstanding cases of reinstatement and compensation for the cases falling under the scope of the Tripartite Agreements are resolved; (ii) to ensure that its legal framework is in conformity with the requirements of the Convention, in particular with regard to the definition and formal prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination across all seven grounds in the Convention, and of sexual harassment; (iii) to ensure that migrant workers as well as domestic workers are included in the protection of anti-discrimination law; and (iv) to repeal any provisions that constitute an obstacle to the recruitment and employment of women. The Committee notes that during the discussion held in June 2018, the Government accepted the CAS request (made in June 2017) that a direct contacts mission take place. This took place between 15 and 19 September 2018. Finally the Committee notes that following the visit of the direct contacts mission, the Government sent a communication to the ILO providing updated information concerning the implementation of the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014 and communicating copies of draft amendments and regulations submitted to Cabinet, in accordance with the direct contacts mission’s request.

I. Measures taken to implement the commitments contained in the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014

Article 1 of the Convention. Discrimination on the basis of political opinion. The Committee recalls that, at the 100th Session (June 2011) of the International Labour Conference, a complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution concerning the non-observance by Bahrain of the Convention was filed by some Workers’ delegates at the Conference. According to the complaint, in February 2011, suspensions and various other sanctions, including dismissals, were imposed on trade union members and leaders, as a result of peaceful demonstrations demanding economic and social changes and expressing support for ongoing democratization and reform. The complaint alleged that these dismissals (approximately 4,600) were on the grounds of the workers’ opinions, beliefs and trade union affiliation. At its 319th Session (October 2013), the Governing Body welcomed a Tripartite Agreement, reached in March 2012 by the Government, the GFBTU and the Bahrain Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI). At its 320th Session (March 2014), the Governing Body welcomed the adoption of a Supplementary Tripartite Agreement signed in March 2014 on the final settlement of the dismissed workers. Consequently, the complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution was closed and the Governing Body invited this Committee to follow up on the implementation of the Tripartite Agreements, in particular with regard to the 165 outstanding dismissal cases (according to the list annexed to the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014) and to examine the application of the Convention by the Government.

In its 2017 report submitted pursuant to article 22 of the ILO Constitution, the Government explained that all the cases concerning workers dismissed for reasons relating to the events of February 2011 had been resolved on the basis of cooperation at the national level between the social partners. However, the Committee noted that, according to ITUC observations, 64 cases of dismissal relating to the events of February 2011 were still outstanding. Noting that the GFBTU, which is a party to the Tripartite Agreements, did not send its observations confirming that there had been full implementation of the above-mentioned Agreements, the Committee had asked the Government to provide evidence that the cases of the 165 dismissed workers mentioned by name in the Annex to the Tripartite Agreement of March 2014 had been resolved to the respective satisfaction of the parties.

In its latest report the Government stresses the efforts exerted by the Tripartite Committee set up to settle the cases of workers who had been dismissed in the wake of the 2011 events. The Government indicates that, only nine cases (out of the initial 4,600) remain outstanding but that they are about to be settled. The Government provides a detailed account of the steps taken in this regard in cooperation with the GFBTU. The Committee notes that this information was also communicated to the direct contacts mission during its meeting with officials of the Ministry of Labour and Social Development (MLSD). As for the “certificate of rehabilitation”, mentioned in the Committee’s previous comment, the Government indicates that it is not a precondition for employment nor necessary to benefit from the Government’s services in training and placement but that it is a document delivered by the courts, upon request, to workers who have been convicted by the courts, served their sentence and who have expressed the wish to apply once again for a job in the public sector.

The Committee notes that in their observations both the GFBTU and the ITUC maintain that there are more than the nine outstanding cases mentioned by the Government. They argue that of the 64 cases which were still pending in 2017, at the date of submitting their observations and at the meeting with the direct contacts mission (September 2018), 55 cases remain outstanding. Both organizations draw attention to the fact that, apart from the alleged 55 outstanding cases, there remain a number of other outstanding issues regarding the implementation of the Tripartite Agreements, which relate to: (i) the fact that, although according to the Tripartite Agreements, dismissed workers were entitled to be reinstated in sectors and with job descriptions similar to those in which they had worked prior to their dismissals, in practice this undertaking is not always respected. The GFBTU and the ITUC give concrete examples, such as the case of a company driver who was reinstated as a forklift operator, and a trade union leader formerly employed as an engineer now working in the maintenance service; (ii) cases that could not be considered as a proper implementation of the Tripartite Agreements, for example some workers have been pressured to accept early retirement or to become self-employed, while others were arbitrarily dismissed shortly after being reinstated; (iii) cases where workers have been dismissed because they were facing criminal charges (contrary to Bahraini law, where only a guilty verdict following a criminal trial could justify termination of employment) and were still waiting to be reinstated after having been found not guilty; and (iv) a lack of proper compensation for the loss of income incurred since dismissal and the treatment of social security contributions for the period between dismissal and reinstatement or the acceptance of a financial package in lieu of reinstatement (with the exception of the cases of BCCI and the University of Bahrain, where dismissed workers were fully compensated). Finally, both organizations indicate that, following the signing of the Tripartite Agreement of 2014, 17 new cases of dismissals have occurred, based on the same grounds as of 2011 (political opinion, belief and trade union affiliation).

The Committee notes that during its last meeting with the direct contacts mission, the GFBTU indicated a willingness to acknowledge that some of the 55 cases were close to being resolved. However, the GFBTU emphasized that it could only undertake a proper assessment of some of these cases once a three-month period had elapsed after reinstatement and the workers were able to confirm that they were satisfied with the arrangements made. As to the nine cases that had been mentioned by the MLSD as the only remaining cases, information regarding the most recent MLSD efforts for the settlement of five of these cases is noted. The Committee further notes that the GFBTU indicated a willingness to further discuss with the MLSD the list of 55 cases, if effective efforts were made to resolve the remaining four cases, out of the nine acknowledged by the MLSD to be outstanding, bearing in mind that these four cases were former employees of Government departments who had not been convicted of any crime. Further, the GFBTU emphasized that, for those workers whose cases had not been resolved, the consequences for them and their families were severe (no regular income since 2011 and sometimes no possibility of finding new employment as they are “blacklisted”). The GFBTU expressed the hope that the outstanding matters could be effectively settled by January 2019. From the information contained in the direct contacts mission report, the Committee notes that Bahrain’s tripartite constituents have made strenuous efforts to resolve the remaining cases listed in the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014 and that consequently very few cases remain outstanding. However, it notes that the number of outstanding cases is still the subject of dispute between the Government (nine) and the GFBTU (55) and that the direct contacts mission acknowledged that each and every case that remains outstanding is important because of the impact on the workers affected and on their families. It also notes that, both the Government and the GFBTU have expressed their commitment to coming to an agreement on the number of outstanding cases and to resolving them. Welcoming this commitment, the Committee calls upon both parties to strengthen their efforts to agree upon the number of outstanding cases and to resolve them in accordance with the Tripartite Agreements, including with regard to financial compensation and the provision of social insurance coverage for the period of interrupted service. It urges the Government and the GFBTU to address the outstanding cases in a constructive, pragmatic and flexible way without delay in order to move forward and engage with other pressing issues for the tripartite constituents. Noting that the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014 contain an undertaking from the tripartite constituents that they will “promote social and institutional dialogue through strengthening the existing tripartite mechanisms in accordance with national laws and regulations as well as with international principles and standards” in order “to strengthen productive relations and advance social dialogue”, the Committee wishes to point out that the Tripartite Agreements provide an opportunity not only to resolve the individual cases but also to develop constructive social dialogue, which has been hindered since 2011.

In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to provide its comments on the allegations of Education International (EI) and the Bahrain Teachers Association (BTA) that, following the dismissal of a number of teachers involved in the peaceful demonstrations during the 2011 events, some 9,000 expatriates had been hired from Arab States by the Ministry of Education and that a two-tier teacher workforce has been established with expatriate teachers benefiting from better conditions than nationals. The Committee notes that according to the Government, this information is erroneous as the Ministry of Education (MoE) has reinstated the small number of dismissed workers. Furthermore, the Government indicates that the MoE continues to advertise its vacancies, carry out the necessary tests and interviews and employ Bahraini citizens as a priority, in conformity with the national policy of “indigenization” of the public sector in general and of educational jobs in particular (Bahrain Economic Vision 2030). Expatriate employment is limited to specializations in which national graduates are lacking and each year the Government earmarks a large amount of its budget for training its national employees to progressively replace expatriate teachers. As a result, in the past years, all the teachers benefiting from promotions and grades are Bahraini citizens; consequently, 100 per cent of the MoE upper and middle management, directors and high officials are nationals of Bahrain. On this point, the Government also draws the Committee’s attention to the fact that the BTA was dissolved in 2011 and it questions the credibility of any information provided by the Association. In addition, the Committee notes the information given to the direct contacts mission during its meeting with officials of the MoE that, out of a total of 25,000 employees (in the public sector), no more than 70 teachers were dismissed and to date all of those teachers have been reinstated with full compensation (back pay and social security coverage from the date of dismissal). There have not been reinstatements in four cases because the persons concerned had criminal records and responsibility for such cases lies with the Civil Service Bureau (CSB). During its meeting with the direct contacts mission, the CSB confirmed that the 180 teachers who had been dismissed in 2011 had all been reinstated with full benefits; the four outstanding dismissal cases were not linked to the 2011 events but related to other grounds (mainly misconduct), and referred the direct contacts mission to section 25.1(g) of the Civil Service Law (Reasons for termination service) which stipulates that: “An Employee’s service shall be terminated for the following reasons: … Dismissal from service by a disciplinary action or in accordance with a judicial ruling.” The Committee notes that, during its meeting with the GFBTU, the direct contacts mission was told that 15 teachers who were members of the BTA had been dismissed following the events of 2011, and five of them, including the Vice-President, had still not been reinstated nor had they been provided with any information on the progress of their cases and consequently were unable to gain employment in private schools due to the lack of clearance from the MoE. In addition, the direct contacts mission was informed that dismissed teachers were frequently replaced by teachers who had recently been naturalized as Bahraini citizens. The Committee therefore asks the Government to provide its comments on these allegations, including whether the difficulties encountered by the dismissed workers are linked to the failure to issue a “certificate of rehabilitation”.

With regard to discrimination based on political opinion, the Committee notes the concluding observations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC) on the initial report of Bahrain on the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). In these concluding observations, while acknowledging the State Party’s need to adopt measures to combat acts of terrorism, the HRC expressed concerns that the Act on the Protection of Society from Acts of Terrorism (Act No. 58/2006) provides for an overly broad definition of terrorism that is susceptible to wider interpretation which may result in violations of the right to freedom of expression and assembly. It notes that the HRC is concerned at reports of the extensive use of the Act outside the scope of terrorism, including against human rights defenders and political activists (CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1, 26 July 2018, paragraph 28). Noting that the same concerns were mentioned by the GFBTU during its meetings with the direct contacts mission, and that the ITUC indicates in its observation that the CSB recently published a circular which anticipates disciplinary measures, including dismissal, for any worker “abusing the social media” the Committee recalls that the protection against discrimination on the basis of political opinion under the Convention implies protection in respect of the activities relating to the expression or demonstration of views in opposition to established political principles and opinions. It also covers discrimination based on political affiliation. The protection of political opinion applies to opinions which are either expressed or demonstrated, but does not apply where violent methods are used (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 805). The Committee asks the Government to ensure that the application in practice of Act No. 58/2006 does not infringe the right to be protected from discrimination on the ground of political opinion and to keep it informed of any developments in this respect. It also asks the Government to specify the nature of the offence of “social media abuse” mentioned by the ITUC to ensure that political opinion does not fall under the purview of the new circular.

II. Measures to ensure that Bahrain’s legal framework is in compliance with the requirements of the Convention

The Committee recalls that, since the ratification of the Convention in 2000, it has been asking the Government to implement legislative reforms.

The Committee also notes that following the direct contacts mission, the Government sent to the Head of the direct contacts mission and the ILO drafts of proposed amendments directed at ensuring compliance with the Convention. These will be reviewed below under the relevant Articles of the Convention.

Article 1(1)(a) and (3). Grounds of discrimination and aspects of employment and occupation. Labour Law in the Private Sector. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had noted that the Labour Law in the Private Sector of 2012 (Law No. 36/2012) does not apply to “domestic servants and persons regarded as such, including agricultural workers, security house guards, nannies, drivers and cooks” performing work for the employer or the employer’s family members (section 2(b)). It had stressed that sections 39 (discrimination in wages) and 104 (termination considered to be discriminatory) of the Labour Law in the Private Sector do not include race, colour (only mentioned in section 39), political opinion, national extraction and social origin in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. Consequently, it had reiterated its request to the Government to take the necessary steps to include in the Labour Law in the private sector a definition of discrimination as well as a prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination that covers all workers, without distinction whatsoever, with respect to all grounds provided for in the Convention, including colour; with respect to all aspects of employment, including access to vocational training, access to employment and to particular occupations, and terms and conditions of employment, and to provide information on any developments in this regard. The Committee also notes the CAS’s conclusions referred to above.

The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its statement that no complaints on discrimination in employment or occupation against nationals or expatriates based on religion, ethnicity, colour, belief or affiliation were filed and that the legal framework in place (Constitution, Labour Law in the Private Sector, Civil Service Law, Penal Code) provides constitutional safeguards directed at achieving justice, equality and non-discrimination. Nevertheless, in 2017, the Government decided to address the CEACR and CAS’s recommendations, commenced a review of the Labour Law and has drafted proposed amendments for presenting to the National Assembly. The Committee notes that under the terms of the proposed amendments, if enacted, a new section – section 2 bis – will be incorporated into the Labour Law for the Private Sector, as follows: “Discrimination on the grounds of sex, origin, language, religion or belief among the workers who are prescribed by the provisions of this law is hereby prohibited”; and the current section 185 will be slightly modified to refer to section 2 bis as follows: “A penalty of a minimum fine of 200 dinars [approximately US$530] and a maximum of 500 dinars [US$1,326] shall be imposed on any employer or his representative who violates any provisions specified in section 2 bis.” The Committee notes that these two new provisions will introduce protection against discrimination in employment for domestic workers and the like. However, it also notes that these amendments fall short of the legislative reforms expected. As amended, the Labour Law in the Private Sector omits: (i) a comprehensive definition of discrimination; (ii) a prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination; (iii) protection against discrimination in employment and occupation based on all the seven grounds provided for in the Convention (including race, colour, political opinion, national extraction and social origin); and (iv) protection extending to all aspects of employment and particular occupation (including access to vocational training, employment and particular occupations and terms and conditions of employment). It notes that the newly drafted section 185 specifies that sanctions are available when an employer or his/her representative has subjected a worker to discrimination, but not when a worker is subject to discrimination by a co-worker; and that the draft is silent as to the remedies available to the victim.

Public service. The Committee recalls its previous comment, that public sector workers are covered by Civil Service Instruction No. 16/2016 which only prohibits discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, age or religion and its request to the Government that it take the necessary measures to ensure that public officials enjoy adequate protection in practice against direct and indirect discrimination in employment and occupation, with respect to all grounds provided for in the Convention. The Committee notes with concern that the Government’s report is silent on this point and that the proposed amendments communicated to the ILO on 11 October 2018 are limited to the Labour Law in the Private Sector and do not concern the Civil Service Instruction No. 16/2016 which is also not in conformity with the Convention. The Committee wishes to reiterate once again that a clear and comprehensive definition of discrimination in employment and occupation is critical in identifying and addressing the many manifestations in which it may occur (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 743). It also wishes to stress that the lack of complaints is not an indicator of the absence of discrimination in practice. It most likely reflects the lack of an appropriate legal framework, a lack of awareness of rights, a lack of confidence in, or the absence of, practical access to procedures, or fear of reprisals. In that regard, the Committee notes that in its findings, the direct contacts mission found that there is low-level awareness as to the procedure for enforcing the prohibitions on discrimination and as to the remedies available. In addition, it notes that in its concluding observations on the initial report of Bahrain dated 26 July 2018, the HRC regretted the lack of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation covering all the grounds prohibited under the CCPR and expressed concern about the lack of information on effective remedies for victims of discrimination (CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1, paragraph 14). Consequently, the Committee urges the Government to amend both the Labour Law and the Civil Service Law (Civil Service Instruction No. 16/2016 and Legislative Decree No. 48 of 2010) to incorporate a comprehensive definition of all forms of discrimination in accordance with the Convention and to accept the direct contacts mission’s recommendations that the current legal reforms should ensure that both the Labour Law and the Civil Service Law: (i) contain a comprehensive definition of discrimination which should include direct and indirect discrimination and cover the seven grounds listed in the Convention; (ii) cover all categories of workers, including migrant workers, since the Convention is not limited in its scope as regards individuals or branches of activity; (iii) protect against discrimination in all forms of employment and occupation including in access to vocational training, employment and particular occupations and terms of conditions; and (iv) specify the remedies available for victims of discrimination.

Discrimination based on sex. Sexual harassment. The Committee recalls that it had referred to the need to define and prohibit, expressly, sexual harassment in employment and occupation encompassing both: (i) quid pro quo: any physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature and other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of women and men which is unwelcome, unreasonable and offensive to the recipient; and a person’s rejection of, or submission to, such conduct is used explicitly or implicitly as a basis for a decision which affects that person’s job; or (ii) hostile work environment: conduct that creates an intimidating, hostile or humiliating working environment for the recipient. It notes that in its 2018 conclusions, the CAS also called upon the Government to ensure that sexual harassment is explicitly prohibited in the civil or labour law and that the necessary steps to introduce preventive measures are taken. The Committee notes that, in an effort to ensure full compliance with the Convention in that regard, the Government asked the ILO for technical assistance on 23 July 2018 and the Office provided the MLSD with such assistance on 13 August 2018. The Committee notes that one of the amendments submitted to the ILO after the direct contacts mission addresses sexual harassment at work. Section 192 bis states that: “A sentence of imprisonment of a maximum of one year or a maximum fine of 100 dinars [approximately $265] shall be imposed on any worker who, in the course of, or for reasons of employment, sexually harasses a co-worker by a gesture, verbal or physical conduct, or by any other means. A sentence of imprisonment for a minimum term of six months or a minimum fine of 500 dinars [$1,326] and a maximum fine of 1,000 dinars [$2,653] shall be imposed, whenever such a crime is committed by the employer or by his representative.” The Committee notes that although this new provision formally prohibits sexual harassment in the labour legislation (in addition to the Penal Code) and prescribes the sanctions available in the case of serious misconduct, it does not include a clear definition of sexual harassment and it only addresses cases where a worker is subject to sexual harassment from a co-worker and not when the perpetrator is a representative of the employer or a client. Once again, the Committee emphasizes that without a clear definition of sexual harassment in employment, it remains doubtful whether the legislation effectively addresses all forms of sexual harassment, both quid pro quo and hostile working environment sexual harassment (see 2012 General Survey, paragraph 791). Recalling once again that sexual harassment is a serious manifestation of sex discrimination and a violation of human rights, the Committee once again urges the Government to take steps to incorporate a comprehensive definition of sexual harassment, both in the Labour Law and the Civil Service Law, and to provide for access to effective remedies. With a view to assessing the dissuasive nature of the sanctions in practice, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the relationship between the level of fines and the average salary. It also asks the Government to take practical steps to prevent and address sexual harassment in employment and occupation, such as for example, launching awareness-raising campaigns on the subject, encouraging management training on sex-based harassment prevention, or inviting employers to establish formal policies and procedures to deal with sexual harassment, and to provide detailed information in this regard.

Article 2. Equality of opportunity and treatment between women and men. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the detailed information provided by the Government on steps taken to promote the principle of equal opportunity between men and women in employment and occupation and had asked the Government to provide information on the impact of each of these steps in increasing the number of women in leadership positions and their situation in the labour market, in particular in areas traditionally dominated by men, and updated statistical information on the participation of men and women in the labour market, disaggregated by sector, occupational category and position in both the public and private sectors, and the number of women and men respectively benefiting from vocational training. The Committee notes that the information provided by the Government in this regard does not reply to its request for information on the practical impact of the steps taken by it but merely reiterates the information and statistics communicated in the Government’s previous report. In this regard, the Committee notes the information collected by the direct contacts mission during its meetings in particular with the MoE and the Supreme Council for Women which pointed out the world ranking of the Bahraini education system, the fact that Bahrain has the highest female literacy rate in the Arabian Peninsula (97 per cent of girls are enrolled in primary school and 91 per cent attend secondary school) and one of the highest university gender parity indexes in the region. The Committee notes the outcome of the World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Gender Gap Index (which measures the relative gaps between women and men across four key areas: health, education, economy and politics) which indicates that, in 2015, Bahrain was the Middle East and North Africa region’s most improved country with respect to the Economic Participation [of Women] and Opportunity Sub-Index. It notes too that in its 2017 Report, the WEF ranked Bahrain the region’s best-performing country (along with Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates). The Committee further notes the Government’s Fourth Periodic report (CEDAW/C/BHR/4) submitted by Bahrain in March 2018 to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the detailed account of the measures taken by the country to ensure equality of opportunity and treatment in employment of women. The Committee notes that, although Bahraini women have made big strides and are well qualified, it is still not easy for them to secure access to senior positions in the private sector. Women comprise only 39 per cent of the total workforce and are mostly concentrated in the entry and middle-level management. In this respect, the Committee also notes the concerns of the HRC about the persistence of patriarchal stereotypes regarding the role of women and men in the family and in society and the fact that women are under-represented in political and public life, in particular in decision-making, despite the measures taken to promote gender equality (paragraph 20). The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any proactive measures taken or envisaged to address the underlying causes and de facto inequalities resulting from discrimination deeply entrenched in traditional and societal values. This should include for example information on any special training and coaching programmes for women employees to develop the skills necessary to access senior positions; measures aimed at reconciling work and family responsibilities and avoiding the reinforcement of stereotypes regarding the role of women and men in society and in the family by extending to men measures currently only available to women (for example, part-time work, unpaid leave to look after a child or a dependent relative, paid leave in the event of the death of the husband of a women worker). Recalling that the effective application of the Convention is an ongoing process requiring a continual cycle of assessment, action, monitoring, further assessment and adjustment, including to address new issues and difficulties, the Committee reiterates its request for information on the impact of all the measures and initiatives adopted in order to increase the number of women in leadership positions and their situation in the labour market, in particular in areas traditionally dominated by men.

Article 3(c). Migrant workers. The Committee recalls that it had asked the Government to provide its comments on the ITUC’s allegations concerning the newly introduced “Flexi scheme” and the kafala or sponsorship system and reiterated its previous request to the Government to provide information on the specific measures adopted to ensure effective protection of all migrant workers, including migrant domestic workers, against discrimination based on all the grounds set out in the Convention. The Committee further asked the Government to ensure that any rules adopted to regulate the rights of migrant workers to change employers do not impose conditions or limitations that could increase the dependency of migrant workers on their employers, and thus increase their vulnerability to abuse and discriminatory practice. It also asked the Government to provide information on the nature and number of cases, disaggregated by sex, occupation and country of origin, where the employer or the Labour Market Regulatory Authority (LMRA) had not approved the transfer of an employee to another employer and on what basis.

The Committee notes the Government’s response that the legal framework provides legal protection to migrant workers with respect to the regulation of labour relations and ensures the rights of all parties, including protection against discrimination in employment and occupation. The Government states that the competent bodies make great efforts to monitor the effective application of the law and to provide support services specifically designed to protect migrant workers, including: (i) mechanisms for filing individual complaints to the MLSD in order to reach amicable settlements; (ii) arrangements allowing for direct contact with the LMRA for migrant workers in several languages; (iii) publication of awareness-raising materials in 14 different languages in cooperation with embassies; (iv) providing migrant workers with the right to transfer from an employer to another, without the consent of the current employer (25,000 approvals in 2017); (v) the introduction of a flexible work permit system (Flexi) from mid-July 2017; (vi) access to an unemployment insurance scheme; (vii) a right of representation in trade unions and federations; (viii) distribution of SIM cards free of charge to keep workers informed in their native language of any developments concerning their work permits and legal status; (ix) introduction of a “National Referral System for Victims of Trafficking in Persons”; (x) creation of a shelter to support and protect migrant workers in difficult situations; and (xi) periodic meetings with embassies of the countries of origin of migrant workers; etc. As for raising the level of awareness of migrant workers as to their rights, the Government recalls that it is not solely its responsibility to do so but also that of embassies representing the countries of origin, trade unions and civil society organizations related to foreign communities, such as cultural and social clubs. Regarding the ITUC statement that the LMRA continues to allow employers to include in workers’ employment contracts a limitation on the right to transfer to another employer for a specified period, the Government states that a worker’s freedom to transfer to another employer has become a right and that the LMRA does not take into account any conditions set out in an employment contract which limit a worker’s right to transfer to another employer. As for cases where a migrant worker has been subject to abusive practices by his/her employer, he/she can request a transfer without having to observe the fixed conditions and legal deadlines. In addition, the Government points out that to date no such cases have been reported to the LMRA. In reply to the ITUC reference to the kafala or sponsorship system or to the nature of the contractual relationship between a migrant worker and an employer, the Government emphasizes that the question of linking the work permit to a specific employer is a regulatory question and is an on-going practice in numerous countries in the world. The Government considers that it is not related to discrimination nor is it in contravention of the principles enshrined in the Convention. Further, asking that the migrant workers provide documents which attest to their identity such as a passport or any other document is a necessary procedural step. A migrant worker who does not have a passport for any reason may remedy this through the embassy of his/her country of origin. The Government indicates that migrant workers are also permitted to obtain theoretical and practical training in accordance with employers’ needs. With respect to the Committee’s request that the Government provide information on the nature and number of cases in which request for a transfer to another employer is refused and the basis for this refusal, the Government indicates that the electronic system, which registers transfer requests, does not accept the registration of requests which do not meet the conditions and rules specified in the law. The Government recalls that in addition to the formal mechanisms for the filing of complaints (labour inspection or courts), migrant workers can resort to their embassies, trade unions, and civil society organizations such as, for example, the National Committee for Human Rights. The Government also states that the MLSD pays great attention to training labour inspectors and is currently examining the possibility of establishing a unit specialized in discrimination. With regard to the introduction of a pilot scheme for a Flexi work permit by which migrant workers are allowed to work without a sponsor (subject to fees), the Committee notes the detailed justification given to the direct contacts mission by the Chief Executive Officer of the LMRA according to which the Flexi permit aims to respond to the economic changes in the country (and worldwide) and the ever-increasing demand for casual, part-time, and seasonal workers. This pilot scheme is an attempt to move away from the sponsorship system and the periodic amnesties which have not resolved the problem of migrant workers whose status is irregular. In introducing the Flexi permit, the LMRA is endeavouring to tackle the problem of undocumented workers differently. According to the LMRA, undocumented workers often work on their own account or as self-employed workers and thus compete with workers whose status is regular and with small businesses, since they constitute a cheap and flexible workforce. The Government indicates that under this new scheme, a migrant worker who has a Flexi work permit is a worker who is employed in the labour market, and who is subject to all laws which regulate the relationship between an employer and a worker such as the Labour Law in the Private Sector. This new system allows a migrant worker working in unfair conditions to make an independent application for a personal permit enabling him or her to work without being bound to a particular employer, in accordance with the rules, and thus avoid exploitation. A migrant worker is free to select registration within the Flexi work permit system or the normal work permit, while benefiting from the freedom of transferring to another employer.

The Committee notes the observations of the GFBTU and the ITUC regarding the situation of migrant workers in Bahrain, as well as the information provided by the Migrant Workers Protection Society (MWPS) to the direct contacts mission. The ITUC recalls that migrant workers account for about 77 per cent of the workforce in Bahrain and they are mostly in low-skill, low-wage jobs in construction, trade, manufacturing and domestic work. They are excluded from a number of provisions of the labour and social protection laws and as a result the GFBTU and the ITUC allege that migrant workers: (i) are denied decent working conditions; (ii) work in unsafe environments; (iii) work excessively long hours (up to 19 hours a day with minimal breaks and no days off); (iv) are paid extremely low wages (some employers pay wages averaging 70 dinar ($186) per month and often go as low as 50 dinars ($92), which are often unpaid for months); and (v) are excluded from social security benefits, and are only entitled to insurance against work injuries. The situation of domestic workers and particularly women migrant workers is aggravated by the exclusion of private houses from labour inspection. According to the ITUC, from April to July 2018, the number of foreign workers in Bahrain committing suicide increased dramatically. With regard to the Flexi permit scheme, the information provided by the GFBTU, the ITUC and the MWPS indicates that although the scheme was set up initially to help migrant workers regularize their residence status, in practice most of them are excluded from the scheme since: (i) skilled workers, workers who escaped abusive employers, domestic and agricultural workers are not eligible; (ii) its cost is prohibitive (total cost for two years is 1,169 dinars or $3,125 while most of them earn less than 200 dinars or $535 per month); and (iii) one of the conditions is to be in possession of a valid passport, a condition that most of the migrant workers in an irregular situation cannot fulfil since their passports will have been confiscated by their employer. In light of the above, the ITUC states that the real objective of the Flexi work permit scheme is to lower the cost of hiring migrant workers and divert money from the free visa black market to the Government rather than regularizing migrant workers in an irregular situation. The ITUC also stresses that, although the Government states that a migrant worker working under this scheme will still enjoy all the benefits and rights provided by the Labour Law in the Private Sector, it is still not clear which law covers the employment contracts of Flexi permit workers and how this impacts on the labour protections afforded to them. The GFBTU adds that the “Wage improvement protection system” (which requires employers to transfer salaries of employees to a bank) launched by the Government to protect private sector workers may benefit construction workers and other private sector workers but it will not solve the problem of vulnerability faced by domestic workers, particularly housemaids who are not familiar with the bank system and electronic transfers, a statement which was supported by the MWPS. As regard the adoption of the “Tripartite Domestic Workers contract”, which regulates the relationship between the recruitment agency, the employer (the household) and the migrant domestic worker, the aim of which is to prevent the exploitation of domestic workers, this is expected to help guarantee the rights of migrant domestic workers. Employers must now state in detail and in writing, among other things, the nature of the job, the working hours and weekly day off and other conditions of work (accommodation offered, salary, number and ages of household members, etc.). The MWPS explained to the direct contacts mission, however, that in practice this contract is bipartite, between the employment agency and the employer, given that the majority of migrant workers (in particular domestic workers) are illiterate. With regard to the kafala or sponsorship system, both the ITUC and the GFBTU point out that, although the Government has repeatedly stated that migrant workers in Bahrain are not subject to the kafala system and may change employment without the permission of their sponsor, in practice the LMRA continues to allow employers to include in their employment contracts a provision limiting the circumstances in which approval of a transfer to another employer will be granted, in particular by prohibiting transfer within the first 12 months of employment.

The Committee takes note of the steps taken by the Government to ensure better protection for migrant workers in general and domestic workers in particular. However, it regrets that the proposed amendment communicated by the Government on October 2018, aimed at explicitly extending the full protection of the Convention to migrant workers falls short of the Committee’s and CAS’ expectations since the protection against discrimination in employment and occupation afforded to domestic workers and migrant workers does not extend to all the grounds formally prohibited by the Convention. The Committee therefore urges the Government to ensure that the text finally adopted covers all the points listed in its comments above under Articles 1(1)(a) and 3 of the Convention. The Committee reminds the Government of the possibility of availing itself of the technical assistance of the ILO in this regard.

As regards the kafala system, the Committee considers that any move towards de-linking migrant workers from the control of a single sponsor is to be welcomed. However, the information provided to the direct contacts mission and the Committee suggests that the Flexi permit scheme is neither meeting the Government’s expectations nor meaningfully improving mobility for migrant workers as a whole. Noting that the Flexi permit system is a pilot scheme which will be reviewed after a certain period, the Committee urges the Government to address these issues and consider reducing the fees and relaxing the eligibility criteria to enable more migrants to apply for a Flexi permit. As to the remaining aspects of the kafala system limiting migrant workers’ freedom of movement, the Committee asks the Government to prohibit restrictions on a worker’s freedom to change employer, including before expiry of a 12-month period from the date of commencement of the contract and to provide information on any progress made in this regard. In the meantime, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the implementation of the Flexi permit scheme and its impact on reducing migrant workers’ vulnerability to exploitation. Noting that the ITUC and the GFBTU are questioning the efficiency of the Wage Improvement Protection System and the Tripartite Domestic Worker Contract, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the implementation in practice of these two measures and to periodically evaluate them in order to monitor their impact on reducing migrant workers’ vulnerability.

Article 5. Special measures of protection. The Committee wishes to recall that protective measures for women may be broadly categorized into those aimed at protecting maternity, in the strict sense, which come within the scope of Article 5, and those aimed at protecting women generally because of their sex or gender based on stereotypical perceptions about their capabilities and appropriate role in society which are contrary to the Convention and constitute obstacles to the recruitment and employment of women (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 839). The Committee recalls that it considers that provisions relating to the protection of persons working under hazardous or difficult conditions should be aimed at protecting the health and safety of both men and women at work, while taking account of gender differences with regard to specific risks to their health. Therefore any restrictions on women’s access to work based on health and safety considerations must be justified and based on scientific evidence and, when in place, must be periodically reviewed in the light of technological developments and scientific progress, to determine whether they are still necessary for protection purposes. The Committee also emphasizes the need to adopt measures and put in place facilities to enable workers with family responsibilities, in particular women who continue to bear the unequal burden of family responsibilities, to reconcile work and family responsibilities. Consequently, in its previous comments, the Committee had urged the Government to take steps to ensure that protective measures applicable to women are limited to maternity protection in the strict sense, and to repeal any provisions that constitute an obstacle to the recruitment and employment of women, such as Ministerial Order No. 16 of 2013 (regarding occupations in which, and the circumstances under which, employing women at night is prohibited) and section 1 of Order No. 32 of 2013 (which prohibits women’s employment in certain sectors and occupations) and asked the Government to provide information on the specific steps taken or envisaged in this regard. The Committee welcomes the proposed amendments communicated by the Government in response to the Committee’s request. The draft amendment defines the work in which pregnant and breastfeeding women may not be employed. However, the Committee is of the view that the draft amendment is overgeneralized both for the areas of work and the exposure agents (for example in section 1, the text refers to excessive heat but does not precisely define “excessive”). The draft text also omits certain hazards, for example non-ionizing radiation and UV radiation, among others. Overall, the draft also does not take into account the principles of prevention and protection as provided in ILO instruments on occupational safety and health. In light of the above, while welcoming the decision of the Government to propose amendments to the Ministerial Orders mentioned above, the Committee urges the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in this regard, before adopting the draft amendment, since the draft is inadequate. In the meantime, it asks the Government to review its approach regarding restrictions on women’s employment in light of the above principles to ensure that any protective measures taken are strictly limited to maternity protection, in the strict sense, or based on occupational safety and health risk assessments and do not constitute obstacles to the employment of women, in particular to their access to posts with career prospects and responsibilities. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any development in this regard.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Article 1 of the Convention. Discrimination on the basis of religion. The Committee notes the observations submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and Education International (EI) and the Bahrain Teachers Association (BTA) stating that discrimination on a sectarian basis is the major form of discrimination in the country and that it is ongoing on a large scale in both the private and the public sectors. According to the ITUC, there is clear evidence that citizens belonging to one religious sect in the country are excluded from employment in the public sector and in nine major companies, largely government-owned where there are the best conditions of work, including higher wages and better training, health care, insurance, loans, scholarships, etc. The ITUC indicates that this group was subject to systematic discrimination prior to the political events of February 2011 but, since then, discrimination has extended so as to affect recruitment and terms and conditions of employment. The Committee notes that the ITUC’s statement is corroborated by EI and the BTA which indicate that there is systemic discrimination against Shia public sector workers who find themselves facing difficulties in finding work and in securing fair conditions of employment. Noting that the Government has not provided its comments on the allegations raised in these two communications, the Committee asks the Government to provide its comments.

Article 2. National equality policy with a view to eliminating discrimination based on race, colour, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin. Noting that the Government has provided no specific information in this respect, the Committee urges the Government once again to take steps to adopt a national policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment, with a view to eliminating discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin, and to provide specific information in this regard.

Article 3(a). Cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes that the report is silent on this subject. In this regard, it wishes to emphasize the important role of workers’ and employers’ organizations in promoting the acceptance and observance of national policies and plans, including of a national policy on equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any consultation undertaken, as well as on cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations, with a view to promoting non-discrimination and equality in employment and occupation in practice.

Enforcement. Noting the Government’s repeated statement that there are no reported cases of discrimination in the country, the Committee wishes to point out that it is essential to acknowledge that no society is free from discrimination and that continuous action is required to address it. The Committee asks the Government to continue to raise awareness of the relevant legislation, to enhance the capacity of the competent authorities, including judges, labour inspectors and other public officials, to identify and address cases of discrimination and also to examine whether the applicable substantive and procedural provisions, in practice, allow claims to be brought successfully. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on any judicial or administrative decisions concerning the application of the principles of the Convention, as well as information on any violations detected by the labour inspectorate, the sanctions imposed and the remedies granted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 106th Session, June 2017)

The Committee notes the discussion at the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards at its 106th Session (June 2017) and the conclusions adopted which called upon the Government of Bahrain to:

(i) report on the measures taken to implement the commitments contained in the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014 in connection with the Government’s efforts to comply with Convention No. 111 to the Committee of Experts for its November 2017 session;

(ii) ensure that the legislation covers all recognized prohibited grounds of discrimination set out in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, and discrimination in both its direct and indirect forms, and undertake measures to ensure that discrimination in employment and occupation is prohibited in law and in practice;

(iii) ensure that migrant workers as well as domestic workers are included in the protection of anti-discrimination law;

(iv) ensure equality of opportunity and treatment in employment of women; and

(v) ensure sexual harassment is prohibited in the Labour Code and provide information regarding how complaints of this nature may be advanced, to the Committee of Experts for its November 2017 session.

The Committee also notes that the Conference Committee invited the Government to accept a direct contacts mission, and that the ILO Office is still awaiting the Government’s response.

The Committee also notes the observations from the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) received 6 September 2017, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received 1 September 2017, and Education International (EI) and the Bahrain Teachers Association (BTA) received 6 September 2017, which were sent to the Government for its comments thereon.

I. Measures taken to implement the commitments contained in the Tripartite Agreements of 2012 and 2014

Article 1 of the Convention. Discrimination on the basis of political opinion. The Committee recalls that, at the 100th Session (June 2011) of the International Labour Conference, a complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution was filed by some Workers’ delegates at the Conference concerning the non-observance by Bahrain of Convention No. 111. According to the complaint, in February 2011, suspensions and various forms of sanctions, including dismissals, were imposed on members and leaders, as a result of peaceful demonstrations demanding economic and social changes and expressing support for ongoing democratization and reform. The complaint alleged that these dismissals took place on grounds of the workers’ opinions, belief and trade union affiliation. At its 320th Session (March 2014), the Governing Body welcomed a Tripartite Agreement, reached in 2012 by the Government, the General Federation of Bahrain Trade Unions (GFBTU) and the Bahrain Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI), as well as a Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014. The Governing Body invited this Committee to examine the application of the Convention by the Government, and to follow up on the implementation of the agreements reached. According to the Tripartite Agreement of 2012, the national tripartite committee that had been put in place to examine the position of those workers who had been dismissed or that were referred to the criminal courts should continue its work to ensure the full reinstatement of workers. In addition, under the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014, the Government, the GFBTU and the BCCI had agreed to: (i) refer to a tripartite committee those cases which had not been settled and which relate to financial claims or compensation and, in the absence of consensus, refer such cases on for a judicial determination; (ii) ensure social insurance coverage for the period of interrupted services; and (iii) reinstate the 165 remaining workers dismissed from public sector employment and from the major private companies in which the Government has shares and from other private companies according to the list annexed to the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement.

In its report, the Government recalls that, at the date of reporting (30 August 2017), 98 per cent of all cases involving dismissal and mentioned in the Tripartite Agreement of 2012 had been successfully settled (reinstatement with full retention of their employment and pension rights and benefits) and that this file has been closed, with the agreement of the three parties. As for the remaining 2 per cent (or the 165 outstanding problematic cases where there was disagreement with the employers), the Government indicates that, although they concern cases where the persons concerned have been subject to a criminal conviction or where no link has been proven between dismissal and the events of 2011, it had agreed (under the framework of the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of March 2014) to continue negotiations with employers to settle these cases or find the workers concerned alternative employment. According to the Government, 108 cases have been processed and settled by reinstating the workers or finding them similar alternative work with the same pay and benefits. A number of dismissed workers accepted the financial compensation offered, while others have obtained commercial licences and become independent business persons.

The Government further explains that, on 5 January 2017, the GFBTU wrote to it requesting that greater efforts be made to address the 37 remaining cases of the 165 on the list annexed to the Tripartite Agreement, which the GFBTU viewed as outstanding and not yet finalized. In line with the principle of sustained cooperation and partnership with the GFBTU, the Government exerted all possible efforts to settle the 37 problematic cases, despite differences of opinion on the causes of dismissal in these cases. The results of these efforts are that of these 37 cases: (i) ten workers dismissed were reinstated despite the difficulties encountered; (ii) two were offered a financial settlement upon their request, as they did not wish to return to work; (iii) of the 18 workers who were the subject of criminal conviction, 13 cases have been settled. Despite the fact that the Government had no obligation towards workers found guilty in a criminal court, it has resolved to find them alternative employment, if they so wish, once they are registered as jobseekers and able to present a “certificate of rehabilitation”. For the remaining five outstanding cases, this opportunity has not been seized; and (iv) examination and investigation of documents submitted by the GFBTU to meetings of the Joint Tripartite Committee has shown seven cases to be ordinary cases of dismissal to be dealt with as individual labour disputes (for example, disciplinary sanctions initiated before the events of February 2011) and/or with no link to the events of February 2011 in Bahrain. Therefore, it had been agreed to exclude them from the list of dismissed workers recognized under the Tripartite Agreement. Nevertheless, the Government has sought to help these workers and address their situation; accordingly, of these seven workers, one has resigned because of health reasons; one has accepted the offer of an alternative employment in the private sector; one has opted to become an employer and the Government has enabled him to obtain a commercial register; and four did not make use of the possibility to apply for an alternative employment. The Government therefore concludes that, pursuant to the above, all of the cases of workers dismissed in the wake of the events of February and March 2011 have been fully settled on the basis of cooperation at the national level between the social partners but affirms its readiness at all times to continue cooperation and its commitment to finding suitable, alternative employment for all those who so wish.

In this regard, the Committee notes the observations of the ITUC that not all dismissed workers have been fully reinstated in their jobs. According to the ITUC, 64 cases of dismissal related to the events of February 2011 are still pending because the employers refuse to reinstate those workers. The ITUC further affirms that the financial compensation of most reinstated workers has not yet been settled by their respective employers, despite the terms of the Tripartite Agreements in this regard, and that some employers have also declined to provide social insurance for their reinstated workers for the period they were dismissed. In this regard, the Committee notes that, in the list of 165 names attached to the Tripartite Agreement of March 2014, only 12 persons are mentioned as employees of the Ministry of Education. EI and the BTA state that many teachers who had been involved in the peaceful protests lost their jobs and livelihoods at that time and have still not been reinstated or received compensation. However, it is not clear from the statement of EI and the BTA whether some of the 120 teachers who lost their jobs, and are still awaiting reinstatement, were part of the Tripartite Agreements reached in 2012 and 2014. The Committee notes further that the GFBTU, which is a party to the Tripartite Agreements, did not send its observations confirming the full implementation of the abovementioned Agreements, as stated by the Government. It also notes that the Government itself ends its report on that issue, by indicating its readiness and commitment to continue cooperation to finding suitable, alternative employment for all those dismissed workers who so wish – implying that some cases have not yet been settled. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to provide evidence that the cases of the 165 dismissed workers mentioned by name in the Annex to the Tripartite Agreement of March 2014 have been resolved to the respective satisfaction of the parties, that is, not only have the workers who so wish been reinstated or offered alternative employment, but also that they have received financial compensation and provision of social insurance coverage for the period of dismissal. Noting that workers who were convicted by judicial decisions could request assistance from the Ministry to find alternative employment on the condition that they register as jobseekers and are able to produce a “certificate of rehabilitation”, and that nine out of 18 have not made use of that opportunity, the Committee asks the Government to indicate what are the conditions to be fulfilled to obtain that certificate.

The Committee notes the information communicated by EI and the BTA that, following the dismissal of a number of teachers involved in the peaceful demonstrations during the 2011 events, some 9,000 expatriates have been hired from other Arab States by the Ministry of Education and a two-tier teacher workforce has been established with expatriate teachers benefiting from better conditions than nationals. Noting that the Government has not provided its comments on the issues raised in that observation, the Committee invites the Government to provide its comments on these issues.

II. Ensure that legislation covers all recognized prohibited grounds of discrimination set out in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, in both direct and indirect forms, and undertake measures to ensure that discrimination in employment and occupation is prohibited in law and practice

Article 1(1)(a) and (3). Grounds of discrimination and aspects of employment and occupation. The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it had noted that the Labour Law in the Private Sector of 2012 (Law No. 36/2012) does not apply to “domestic servants and persons regarded as such, including agricultural workers, security house-guards, nannies, drivers and cooks” performing work for the employer or the employer’s family members (section 2(b)). It had further stressed that sections 39 (discrimination in wages) and 104 (termination considered to be discriminatory) of the Labour Law in the Private Sector do not include race, colour (only mentioned in section 39), political opinion, national extraction and social origin in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. The Committee notes that, although the Government recognizes that there is a lack of a comprehensive definition of all forms of discrimination in accordance with the Convention, it reiterates its previous explanation, that is: (i) in practice no mention of any actual violation of this principle has been reported in 2015 and 2016 (the Ministry receives more than 3,000 inquiries weekly and none alleges discrimination based on political opinion, gender, religion, etc.); (ii) private sector workers have at their disposal a number of mechanisms for lodging complaints and airing grievances (dispute settlement bodies, ministries, courts); and (iii) public sector workers are covered by Civil Service Instruction No. 16/2016 which prohibits discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, age or religion and have also at their disposal complaint procedures (internal committee, Civil Service Bureau, courts). Nevertheless, the Government indicates that it is ready to cooperate with the ILO to examine the possibility of formulating a comprehensive definition of discrimination in these two laws on the basis of international labour standards, in line with specific constitutional and legislative mechanisms and procedures. In this regard, the Committee wishes to reiterate that a clear and comprehensive definition of what constitutes discrimination in employment and occupation is instrumental in identifying and addressing the many manifestations in which it may occur (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 743). It also wishes to stress that the lack of complaints is not an indicator of the absence of discrimination in practice. It is more likely to indicate the lack of an appropriate legal framework, lack of awareness of rights, lack of confidence in, or the absence of, practical access to procedures, or fear of reprisals. The fear of reprisals is a particular concern in the case of migrant workers. Recalling the Government’s statement that it is willing to examine with ILO technical support the possibility of formulating a comprehensive definition of discrimination in line with the Convention, the Committee reiterates its request to the Government to take the necessary steps to include in the Labour Law in the Private Sector of 2012 a definition of discrimination as well as a prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination that covers all workers, without distinction whatsoever, with respect to all grounds provided for in the Convention, including colour; with respect to all aspects of employment, including access to vocational training, access to employment and to particular occupations, and terms and conditions of employment, and to provide information on any developments in this regard. In addition, noting that Legislative Decree No. 48 of 2010 regarding the civil service does not include a prohibition of discrimination, the Committee asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that public officials enjoy adequate protection in practice against direct and indirect discrimination in employment and occupation with respect to all grounds provided for in the Convention. In this regard, the Committee encourages the Government to consider including specific provisions in Legislative Decree No. 48 providing for comprehensive protection against discrimination in the civil service.

III. Ensure that migrant workers as well as domestic workers are included in the protection of anti-discrimination law

Article 3(c). Migrant workers. In response to the Committee’s request to provide information on the specific measures adopted to ensure effective protection of all migrant workers, including migrant domestic workers, against discrimination based on the grounds set out in the Convention, including access to appropriate procedures and remedies, the Government reiterates the information provided previously regarding the protection of migrant workers in the country, including domestic workers, and states once again that no evidence of discrimination against migrant workers has emerged. The Committee notes, however, new information provided by the Government, namely that since mid-2017 a flexible work permit system was introduced to regularize the status of a large number of persons working informally in Bahrain, enabling them to benefit from social insurance, unemployment insurance and health-care systems. This new system allows a migrant worker working in unfair conditions to make an independent application for a personal permit enabling him or her to work without being bound to a particular employer, in accordance with the rules, and thus avoid exploitation. Workers are also guaranteed full access to legal protection. This system will allow a migrant worker to sign a temporary employment contract and still enjoy all the benefits and rights provided by the Labour Law in the Private Sector, including freedom to transfer from one employer to another.

With regard to migrant workers, the ITUC recalls that migrant workers constitute around 77 per cent of the workforce in Bahrain and they come primarily from Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Jordan, Kenya, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand and Yemen. Migrant workers are represented in numerous sections of the economy, including domestic work (12.8 per cent of the Bahraini workforce and 42.2 per cent of the female workforce), construction and service industries. In its report, the ITUC confirms the introduction of a pilot scheme for a flexible work permit (FLEXI) for limited categories of migrant workers in an irregular situation (skilled workers and workers who escaped abusive employers are not eligible, nor are domestic and agricultural workers). Accordingly, migrant workers in an irregular situation who are currently working in Bahrain are permitted to work without a sponsor provided that they cover certain costs, such as annual fees for work permits (US$530), annual health care (US$381) and a monthly social insurance fee (US$80). In addition, these workers must provide a valid passport in order to apply for a permit. However, ITUC adds that migrants trapped in an irregular situation are generally not in possession of their passport due to confiscation by their previous employer. Further, it is not clear which law covers the employment contracts of “flexi” permit workers and how this impacts the labour protections afforded to them. As regards the right to change employer, the Committee notes the total number of approvals granted for transfer from one employer to another in 2015 (35,000) and 2016 (24,000). It also notes that according to the ITUC although the Government has repeatedly argued that migrant workers in Bahrain are not subject to the kafala system and may change employment without the permission of their sponsor, the Labour Market Regulation Authority continues to allow employers to include in their employment contracts a requirement limiting the approval of a transfer to another employer for a specified period.

With regard to domestic workers, the ITUC recalls that, except in the case of very few provisions, they are excluded from labour law coverage; thus they do not benefit from the labour law provisions on weekly rest days or from a limit on working hours (they can sometimes work up to 19 hours a day with minimal breaks and no day off); there is no stipulation of a minimum wage with the result that, employers can pay wages as low as US$92 per month, averaging US$186. The ITUC concludes by recalling that a number of reports indicate that female domestic workers are victims of physical abuse and sexual assault. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide any information in this regard. The Committee therefore asks the Government to provide its comments on the ITUC’s allegations concerning the newly introduced “flexi-scheme” and the kafala system. In the meantime, the Committee reiterates its previous request to the Government to provide information on the specific measures adopted to ensure effective protection of all migrant workers, including migrant domestic workers, against discrimination based on all the grounds set out in the Convention. The Committee further asks the Government to ensure that any rules adopted to regulate the right of migrant workers to change employers do not impose conditions or limitations that could increase the dependency of migrant workers on their employers, and thus increase their vulnerability to abuse and discriminatory practices. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the nature and number of cases, disaggregated by sex, occupation and country of origin, where the employer or the Labour Market Regulatory Authority did not approve of a transfer to another employer and on what basis. It also asks the Government to identify the specific steps taken or envisaged to raise awareness among both migrant workers and their employers of existing mechanisms to advance their claims to the relevant authorities. Further, the Committee asks the Government to enhance the capacity of the competent authorities, including judges, labour inspectors and other public officials, and to identify and address cases of discrimination.

IV. Ensure equality of opportunity and treatment in employment of women

Article 2. Equality of opportunity and treatment between women and men. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested that the Government continue to provide information on the measures taken by the Supreme Council of Women (CSW) and other relevant authorities, including within the framework of the National Plan for the Advancement of Bahraini Women (2013–22) to promote the principle of equal opportunity between men and women, such as specific examples of legislative reforms undertaken or envisaged, as well as information on their impact on the employment opportunities for women including in areas traditionally dominated by men. It had also requested that the Government continue to provide statistical information on the participation of men and women in the labour market, disaggregated by sector, occupational categories and positions in both the public and private sectors, and the numbers of women and men respectively benefiting from vocational training. In its report, the Government recalls that Bahraini women began working in the private sector in the 1950s and, that by the 1960s, they had begun acquiring commercial registration and entering the world of business. According to the statistics provided, in 2016 women represented 32.8 per cent of the total Bahraini workforce and their average wage increased from 465 Bahraini dinar (BHD) (US$1,232) in 2011 to BHD521 (US$1,381) in the second quarter of 2016. As of August 2016, Bahraini women held 39 per cent of individual commercial registrations. In the private sector, Bahraini women occupy leadership positions, such as executive president, chair and membership in boards of directors. In 2014, four women were elected to the board of the BCCI, of which they constitute 22 per cent of the membership. Furthermore, Bahraini women have begun to enter new areas of employment with which they were not previously associated: for example, becoming taxi drivers, driving instructors and jewellers. According to the Government, these indications demonstrate that women make up approximately 50 per cent of all those working in public and private sector education. With regard to the CSW, the Committee notes that, in coordination with the CSW, 45 equal opportunity committees have been formed in government bodies with the aim of incorporating women’s needs within the equal opportunity framework in all areas of employment and achieving equality of opportunity between all employees and between all beneficiaries of government services. The equal opportunity committees are responsible for formulating guidelines, criteria and plans relating to the application of the principle of equal opportunity, monitoring full incorporation of women’s needs within the equal opportunity framework, and for providing advice. The Committee notes that the Ministry of Labour and Social Development has launched a number of initiatives designed to encourage the employment of women and promote ways of incorporating them in the labour market. These initiatives include, among others, promoting the recruitment of women by offering financial support equivalent to 50 per cent of the monthly wage for a period of two years; creating women-only vacancies; providing training programmes for women in specializations required by the labour market; holding job fairs specifically designed to recruit women; granting companies and employers extra benefits for recruiting women and promoting their presence in the labour market; recognizing a woman’s right to work part time (four to six hours daily), while enjoying all the rights and benefits set out in the Labour Law in the Private Sector and other laws, ensuring an annual leave entitlement, social insurance, healthy working conditions, etc. The Government states that, in addition to enjoying the full protection and benefits determined by the Labour Law in the Private Sector, the legislation grants a woman maternity leave (increased to 60 days with pay, instead of 45 days under the previous law), unpaid leave to look after her infant child under the age of 6 years (this is a new leave that did not exist under the previous law) and one month’s paid leave in the event of the death of her husband. In this regard, the Committee is of the view that, in order to avoid reinforcing stereotypes regarding the role of women and men in society and in the family, some of the measures mentioned above (a woman’s right to work part time, unpaid leave to look after a child under the age of 6 years or one month’s paid leave in the event of the death of the husband of a woman worker) should be extended to men also. Noting that the Government’s report provides ample information on steps taken to promote the principle of equal opportunity between men and women in employment and occupation, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the impact of each of these measures on increasing the number of women in leadership positions and their situation in the labour market, in particular in areas traditionally dominated by men. The Committee also asks the Government to continue to provide statistical information on the participation of men and women in the labour market, disaggregated by sector, occupational category and position in both the public and private sectors, and the numbers of women and men respectively benefiting from vocational training.

Article 5. Special measures of protection. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 31 of the Labour Law on the Private Sector related to work prohibited for women and requested that the Government take the necessary measures to ensure that protective measures applicable to women are limited to maternity protection in the strict sense. In this regard, the Committee noted the adoption of Ministerial Order No. 32 of 2013 which prohibits women’s employment in certain sectors and occupations, including underground work, work involving exposure to high temperatures or dangerous vibrations, work requiring great or continuous physical efforts, and work involving the use or manufacturing of lead (section 1). The Committee also noted that Order No. 16 of 2013 regarding occupations in which, and circumstances under which, employing women at night is prohibited. The Order specifies the industrial establishments where women may not be employed at night, such as: sites where materials are manufactured, destroyed and converted; shipbuilding sites; sites of electric jobs (generating, transferring or coupling) and sites of construction projects and civil engineering. The Committee notes that in its report, the Government reiterates its previous explanation that these specific measures are aimed to protect women from jobs which are against their dignity, capacities and constitution. While noting the Government’s willingness to explore the possibility of including any legislative or regulatory amendments to the law, the Committee once again recalls that protective measures applicable to women’s employment, which are based on stereotypes regarding women’s professional abilities and role in society, violate the principle of equality of opportunity between men and women in employment and occupation enshrined in the Convention. In addition, provisions relating to the protection of persons working under hazardous or difficult conditions should be aimed at protecting the health and safety of both men and women at work (see General Survey, 2012, paragraph 840). Consequently, the Committee once again urges the Government to take steps to ensure that protective measures applicable to women are limited to maternity protection in the strict sense, and to repeal or withdraw any provisions that constitute an obstacle to the recruitment and employment of women, such as Ministerial Order No. 16 of 2013 and section 1 of Order No. 32 of 2013. It asks the Government to provide information on the specific steps taken or envisaged in this regard. The Committee further asks the Government to identify the specific measures adopted to ensure that all workers, both men and women, working under hazardous or difficult conditions, are adequately protected.

V. Ensure sexual harassment is prohibited in the labour legislation and provide information regarding how complaints of this nature may be advanced

The Committee recalls that it had referred to the need to define and prohibit, expressly, sexual harassment in employment and occupation encompassing both quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment. In its report, the Government stresses that no cases of sexual harassment in the workplace have been reported and no complaints of this type have been registered by the Ministry of Labour and Social Development or other relevant bodies. In addition, it refers to sections 81 and 107(7) of the Labour Law in the Private Sector and item 33 of the Schedule of fines and penalties in Instructions No. 12 of the Bureau of the Civil Service of 2007. The Committee notes once again that these provisions do not provide a clear definition of sexual harassment but prescribe the sanctions in cases of serious misconduct, thus: (i) section 81, allows the employer to temporarily suspend a worker “if an offence or a misdemeanour prejudicing honour, trust or public ethics or an offence within the labour department is attributed to the worker”; (ii) section 107 allows the employer to terminate the labour contract without notice or compensation if a final judgment has been entered against the worker for an offence or a misdemeanour prejudicing honour, trust or public ethics or if the worker “has committed an immoral act at the workplace”; (iii) item 33 of the Schedule of fines and penalties provides for a preliminary written warning of dismissal from the public service, in the case of an assault or verbal or physical sexual harassment. The Committee wishes to emphasize that, without a clear definition and prohibition of sexual harassment in employment, it remains doubtful whether the legislation effectively addresses all forms of sexual harassment, both quid pro quo and hostile working environment (see General Survey, 2012, paragraph 791). The Committee also points out that the absence of reported cases on sexual harassment, as stated by the Government, does not necessarily indicate that this form of sex discrimination does not exist; rather, it is likely to reflect the lack of an appropriate legal framework, the lack of awareness, understanding and recognition of this form of sex discrimination among government officials, workers and employers and their organizations, as well as a lack of access to, or the inadequacy of, complaints mechanisms and means of redress, or a fear of reprisals (see General Survey, 2012, paragraph 790). Recalling once again that sexual harassment is a serious manifestation of sex discrimination and a violation of human rights, and that addressing sexual harassment through criminal proceedings only is not sufficient (due to the sensitivity of the issue, the more onerous burden of proof, and the limited range of behaviours addressed), the Committee once again urges the Government to take steps to formally prohibit in the civil or labour law both quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment and to provide remedies and dissuasive sanctions. It also asks the Government to take practical measures to prevent and address sexual harassment in employment and occupation, and to provide detailed information in this regard. Noting that the Government affirms its readiness to take advantage of ILO technical support, the Committee urges the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Article 2 of the Convention. Equality of opportunity and treatment between women and men. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the establishment of the Supreme Council of Women (SCW) and requested the Government to provide information on its functions and activities, as well as on the complaints received. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the SCW’s mission is to empower women and integrate their needs in development in order to ensure the sustainability of their family stability and ties, as well as promote the principle of equal opportunity. The Government further refers to various measures, including establishing a framework of legislation and policies through submitting and commenting on legislative proposals and amendments, drawing up national plans on women, assessing the implementation of public policy relating to women, and raising the public’s awareness on women’s rights. According to the Government, the SCW has also launched a cluster of training and rehabilitation programmes for a few “socially acceptable projects” aimed at giving women the necessary skills and techniques to enable them to set up or manage small projects in a few “suitable occupations in view of the specific nature of Bahraini Women”. The Government further indicates that the SCW has established a “Woman Support Centre”, which receives complaints and provides free legal aid. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in 2014, women’s participation had reached 47 per cent in the public sector and 31 per cent in the private sector, and that commercial enterprises owned by women reached 41 per cent. The Government also indicates that the rate of women’s participation in the government and private educational sectors reached approximately 50 per cent. In this regard, the Committee welcomes that within the context of this National Plan, the Government is seeking to set up a national observatory on labour market data aimed at consolidating the collection and dissemination of statistical data and indicators. The Committee further notes the adoption in 2013 of a National Plan for the Advancement of Bahraini Women (2013–22), which contains various target indicators regarding women’s economic empowerment, equal opportunities between men and women, and vocational education. The Committee notes however, that some of the activities carried out by the Supreme Council of Women and the National Plan appear to reflect the stereotyped assumptions regarding women’s aspirations and capabilities, and the assumption that the main responsibility for family care lies with them. The Committee recalls that this reinforces and prolongs stereotypes regarding the roles of women and men in the family and in society. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken by the Supreme Council of Women and other relevant authorities, including in the framework of the National Plan for the Advancement of Bahraini Women (2013–22) to promote the principle of equal opportunity between men and women. This may include specific examples of legislative reform undertaken or envisaged, as well as information on their impact on improving the employment opportunities for women including in areas traditionally dominated by men. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide statistical information on the participation of men and women in the labour market, disaggregated by sector, occupational categories and positions in both public and private sectors and the number of women and men respectively benefiting from vocational training.

National equality policy with a view to eliminating discrimination based on race, colour, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin. Noting that the Government has provided no specific information in this respect, the Committee emphasizes that pursuant to Article 3(f), the Convention requires national equality policies to be effective and clearly stated, which implies, among other things, that programmes should be set up, stereotyped behaviours and prejudicial attitudes should be addressed, a climate of tolerance should be promoted, and monitoring mechanisms should be put in place. As such, measures to address discrimination in law and practice should be concrete and specific, addressing all the grounds set out in the Convention (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 844). The Committee urges the Government once again to take steps to adopt a national policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment with a view to eliminating discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin, and to provide specific information in this regard.

Article 3(a). Cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s very general indication that it endeavours to hold consultations with social partners on issues relating to discrimination in the labour market. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any consultations undertaken, as well as cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations with a view to implementing the non-discrimination provisions of the Labour Law and promoting non-discrimination and equality in employment and occupation in practice.

Article 5. Special measures of protection. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to section 31 of the Labour Law related to work prohibited for women and requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that protective measures applicable to women are limited to maternity protection in the strict sense. In this regard, the Committee notes the adoption of Ministerial Order No. 32 of 2013 which prohibits women’s employment in certain sectors and occupations, including underground work, work involving exposure to high temperature or dangerous vibrations, work requiring great or continuous physical efforts, and work involving the use or manufacturing of lead (section 1). The Committee also notes that Order No. 16 of 2013 regarding occupations and circumstances under which it is prohibited to employ women at night stipulates industrial establishments where women may not be employed at night, such as sites where materials are manufactured, destroyed and converted; shipbuilding sites; sites of electric jobs (generating, transferring or coupling); and sites of construction projects and civil engineering. The Committee notes that in its report, the Government indicates that these specific measures aim at protecting women from jobs which are against their dignity, capacities and constitution. The Committee recalls that protective measures applicable to women’s employment, which are based on stereotypes regarding women’s professional abilities and role in society, violate the principle of equality of opportunity between men and women in employment and occupation. In addition, provisions relating to the protection of persons working under hazardous or difficult conditions should be aimed at protecting the health and safety of both men and women at work (2012 General Survey, paragraph 840). The Committee urges the Government to take steps to ensure that protective measures applicable to women are limited to maternity protection in the strict sense, and to repeal or withdraw any provisions that constitute an obstacle to the recruitment and employment of women, such as Ministerial Order No. 16 of 2013 and section 1 of Order No. 32 of 2013. It requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken or envisaged in this regard. The Committee further requests the Government to indicate the specific measures adopted to ensure that all workers, both men and women, working under hazardous or difficult conditions are adequately protected.

Enforcement. The Committee notes the Government’s general indication that it has implemented a number of training courses for labour inspectors at the Ministry of Labour. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide training to labour inspectors and other personnel involved in the monitoring and enforcing of the Labour Law, to assist them to better identify and address issues of discrimination in employment and occupation and to continue to take measures to raise awareness of workers and employers on the principle of the Convention, on non-discrimination provisions of the Labour Law, and the available avenues of dispute resolution. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any judicial or administrative decisions concerning the application of the principle of the Convention, as well as information on any violations in this regard detected by the labour inspectorate, the sanctions imposed and the remedies granted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Article 1 of the Convention. Discrimination on the basis of political opinion. The Committee recalls that at the 100th Session of the International Labour ConferenceJune 2011, a complaint was filed by some Workers’ delegates at the Conference concerning the non-observance by Bahrain of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), under article 26 of the ILO Constitution. According to the allegations, in February 2011, suspensions and various forms of sanctions, including dismissals, were imposed on members and leaders, as a result of peaceful demonstrations demanding economic and social changes and expressing support for ongoing democratization and reform. The complaint alleged that these dismissals took place on grounds such as workers’ opinions, belief and trade union affiliation. At its 320th Session (March 2014), the Governing Body welcomed a Tripartite Agreement, reached in 2012 by the Government, the General Federation of Bahrain Trade Unions (GFBTU) and the Bahrain Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI), as well as a Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014, and invited this Committee to examine the application of the Convention by the Government, and to follow up on the implementation of the reached agreements. According to the Tripartite Agreement of 2012, the national tripartite committee that had been put in place to examine the situation of those workers that had been dismissed or that were referred to criminal courts should continue its work to ensure the full reinstatement of workers. The Committee notes that under the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014, the Government, GFBTU and BCCI had agreed to: (i) refer to a tripartite committee those cases which have not been settled which relate to financial claims or compensation and, in the absence of consensus, refer to the judiciary; (ii) ensure social insurance coverage for the period of interrupted services; and (iii) reinstate the 165 remaining dismissed workers from the public service sector and from the major private companies where the Government has shares and from other private companies according to the list annexed to the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement. Noting that the Government provides no information in this respect, the Committee requests it to indicate what specific measures have been taken to implement the Tripartite Agreement of 2012 and the Supplementary Tripartite Agreement of 2014 towards the full application of the Convention, and to inform on the current situation concerning the financial claims or compensation; the provision of social insurance coverage and the reinstatement of the 165 workers dismissed during the 2011 peaceful demonstrations.

Article 1(1)(a) and (3). Grounds of discrimination and aspects of employment and occupation. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that the Labour Law in the Private Sector of 2012 (Law No. 36/2012) does not apply to “domestic servants and persons regarded as such, including agricultural workers, security house-guards, nannies, drivers and cooks” performing work for the employer or the employer’s family members (section 2(b)). The Committee further recalls that sections 39 (discrimination in wages) and 104 (termination considered to be discriminatory) of the Labour Law in the Private Sector do not include race, colour (only mentioned in section 39), political opinion, national extraction and social origin in the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that section 39 prohibits discrimination in wages in a general and broad manner, and that the term “origin” includes national or social origin, race, or nationality, while the term “ideology” includes political conviction. The Committee further referred to the fact that the Labour Law does not define discrimination, does not appear to prohibit indirect discrimination and covers only dismissal and wages, leaving aside other aspects of employment, such as access to vocational training, access to employment and occupation, and terms and conditions of employment. Recalling that clear and comprehensive definitions of what constitutes discrimination in employment and occupation are instrumental in identifying and addressing the many manifestations in which it may occur, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to include in the Labour Law in the Private Sector of 2012 a definition of discrimination as well as a prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination that covers all workers, without distinction whatsoever, with respect to all grounds provided for in the Convention, including colour, with respect to all aspects of employment, including access to vocational training, access to employment and to particular occupations, and terms and conditions of employment, and to provide information on any development in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which adequate protection against discrimination on the grounds of national extraction, social origin and political opinion is ensured in practice, including information on any case examined by the labour inspectorate or administrative bodies or the courts indicating sanctions imposed and remedies provided. Noting that Legislative Decree No. 48 of 2010 regarding the civil service does not include a prohibition of discrimination, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that public officials enjoy adequate protection in practice against direct and indirect discrimination in employment and occupation with respect to all grounds provided for in the Convention. In this regard, the Committee encourages the Government to consider including specific provisions in Legislative Decree No. 48 providing for comprehensive protection against discrimination in the civil service.

Sexual harassment. The Committee recalls that it had referred to the need to define and prohibit, expressly, sexual harassment in employment and occupation encompassing both quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment. The Committee notes that the Government refers once again to the Penal Code No. 15 of 1976 which penalizes sexual harassment in the workplace, and to the possibility of submitting complaints of discrimination to the Ministry of Labour. The Government further indicates that it will examine the efficiency of the Penal Code when it will update the Labour Law in the Private Sector in the future. Recalling that sexual harassment is a serious manifestation of sex discrimination and a violation of human rights, and that addressing sexual harassment through criminal proceedings is not sufficient due to the sensitivity of the issue, the higher burden of proof, and the limited range of behaviours addressed, the Committee once again urges the Government to take steps to prohibit in the civil or labour law both quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment and to provide remedies and dissuasive sanctions. It also asks the Government to take practical measures to prevent and address sexual harassment in employment and occupation, and to provide detailed information in this regard. The Committee reminds the Government that it can avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in this respect.

Article 3(c). Migrant workers. The Committee recalls that the Labour Law on the Private Sector excludes “domestic servants and persons regarded as such, including agricultural workers, security house-guards, nannies, drivers and cooks” which are, in their great majority, migrant workers, from the coverage of the non-discrimination provisions. The Committee also recalls that it has been raising concerns regarding the particular vulnerability of migrant workers to discrimination, in particular migrant domestic workers. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to sections 2 and 5 of Ministerial Order No. 79 of 16 April 2009 which give migrant workers the right to change employers subject to approval by the Labour Market Regulatory Authority, but noted the Government’s indication that the employer generally had the right to include in the employment contract a requirement limiting the approval of a transfer to another employer for a specified period, which the Committee considered as undermining the objective of Ministerial Order No. 79 of 2009. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that under section 25 of Law No. 19 of 2006 on the Labour Market Regulatory Authority and Ministerial Order No. 79 of 2009, foreign workers may transfer to another employer without the agreement of the current employer. The Government further indicates that, of the requests accepted by the Labour Market Regulatory Authority between the years 2013 and 2014 (which is 84 per cent of the total number of submissions), 43.5 per cent had the approval of the employer, 1 per cent did not have such approval, and the rest (55.5 per cent) were submitted after the termination or expiration of the previous employment relationship. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the rejections to transfer requests were usually due to errors in the application such as insufficient documentation and that the employers do not have the right to deprive migrant workers from their rights concerning the freedom of transfer from one employer to another. The Committee further notes the various protective measures available to migrant workers, such as individual complaint mechanisms at the Ministry of Labour, the right of migrant workers to advance their claims to the court directly with an exemption of litigation fees, and their right to communicate with direct contact centres at the Labour Market Regulatory Authority to have their work permit status reviewed. It notes the Government’s general indication of the existence of awareness-raising measures to inform workers of their rights and duties, as well as the stated aim of the labour inspectorate to detect practices of exploitation of migrant workers in the labour market by employers who have not obtained the necessary permits. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures adopted to ensure effective protection of all migrant workers, including migrant domestic workers, against discrimination based on the grounds set out in the Convention, including access to appropriate procedures and remedies. The Committee further requests the Government to ensure that any rules adopted to regulate the right of migrant workers to change employers do not impose conditions or limitations that could increase the dependency of migrant workers on their employers, and thus increase their vulnerability to abuse and discriminatory practices. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on: (i) the nature and number of requests received by the Labour Market Regulatory Authority for a transfer of employer without the employer’s approval, disaggregated by sex, occupation and country of origin, and on how many were refused and on what basis; and (ii) the specific measures taken or envisaged to raise the awareness of both migrant workers and their employers of existing mechanisms to advance their claims to relevant authorities, as well as information on the number and nature of claims submitted regarding this matter.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Equality of opportunity and treatment between women and men. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Supreme Council for Women has been established, as well as a unit for equal opportunities between the sexes in the Ministry of Human Rights and Social Development. The equal opportunities unit coordinates with the Supreme Council of Women in resolving complaints, organizing workshops and training courses. The Government states that the Supreme Council of Women has adopted a long-term strategy, including with a view to disseminating information on the Convention and undertaking activities to improve the status of Bahraini women. The Committee notes further from the Government’s report to the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council that there is a national plan for mainstreaming Bahraini women aimed at implementing the “National Model for Integrating Women’s Needs in Development” and that the Government’s current programme for legislative reform includes initiatives aimed at empowering women economically, politically and socially (A/HRC/21/6/Add.1, 13 September 2012, paragraph 27). The Government also provides information on the beneficiaries of government training programmes, with women accounting for over 75 per cent; however, no indication is given of the areas of training being undertaken by women. The Government also provides information on the number of jobseekers registered with the Ministry of Labour (66 per cent women). The Committee asks the Government to provide specific information on the following:

• (i) the mandate of the Supreme Council of Women, the activities or measures undertaken by the Council or the unit for equal opportunities to disseminate information on the Convention and promote equality of opportunity between men and women in employment and occupation, and the results achieved;
• (ii) the nature and number of complaints received by the Council or the unit for equal opportunities and the outcome thereof;
• (iii) the long-term strategy, the National Model for Integrating Women’s Needs in Development, and the legislative reform undertaken or envisaged as they relate to the principle of the Convention, and their impact on improving employment opportunities for women in employment and occupation;
• (iv) the number of women and men respectively benefiting from vocational training, including information on the type of training, and how such training has translated into employment opportunities;
• (v) the measures taken to ensure that women have access to a wider range of educational, training and employment opportunities, including in areas traditionally dominated by men.

National equality policy with a view to eliminating discrimination based on race, colour, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin. While noting the measures taken to promote equality for women, the Committee notes that little information is provided by the Government on a national equality policy aimed at eliminating discrimination based on the other grounds enumerated in the Convention. The Committee recalls that the Convention requires that the national equality policy be effective, and therefore should be clearly stated, which implies that, among other things, programmes should be set up, stereotyped behaviours and prejudicial attitudes addressed and a climate of tolerance promoted, and monitoring put in place; measures to address discrimination in law and practice should be concrete and specific and should address all the grounds set out in the Convention (see General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraph 844). The Committee therefore urges the Government to take steps to adopt a national policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment with a view to eliminating discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin, and to provide specific information in this regard.

Cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes the Government’s general indication that it endeavours to hold consultations with the social partners on the projects and plans that it seeks to implement as well as on the implementation of relevant laws. The Committee asks the Government to provide specific information on any consultations undertaken and other cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations with a view to implementing the non-discrimination provisions of the Labour Law and promoting non-discrimination and equality in employment and occupation in practice.

Enforcement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that discrimination is difficult to detect through labour inspection and requires the presence of persons who are efficiently training on inspection methods, international labour standards and human rights principles. The Government also provides some general information on awareness-raising activities for workers, though without specific reference to equality and non-discrimination in employment and occupation. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the specific training provided to labour inspectors, as well as others involved in the monitoring and enforcing of the application of the Labour Law, to assist them in better identifying and addressing issues of discrimination in employment and occupation. Please also provide information on any measures taken to raise awareness of the non-discrimination provisions of the Labour Law and the principle of the Convention, as well as the available avenues of dispute resolution, among workers, employers and their representatives.

Statistics. Recalling that appropriate data and statistics are crucial in determining the nature, extent and causes of discrimination, to set priorities and design appropriate measures, to monitor and evaluate the impact of such measures and make any necessary adjustments, and noting that the Government once again has not provided such information, the Committee urges the Government to collect and analyse statistical information on the distribution of women and men (nationals and non-nationals) in the different economic sectors, occupational categories and positions, in the public and private sectors, as well as the levels of remuneration.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee notes the complaint concerning the non-observance by Bahrain of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), made by delegates to the 100th Session (June 2011) of the International Labour Conference under article 26 of the ILO Constitution. The status of the complaint remains under review by the ILO Governing Body; therefore, the issues raised therein regarding specific allegations of discrimination based on political opinion and religion will not be examined by this Committee at this time. The Committee also notes the reports received from the Government of 12 September 2011 and 30 August 2012.

Legislative developments. The Committee notes the adoption of the Labour Law in the Private Sector, Law No. 36 of 2012 (“Labour Law”), which entered into force on 2 September 2012. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the new law includes modern principles, which take into account international labour standards, thus addressing several gaps in the previous law. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 39, “Discrimination in wages based on sex, origin, language, religion or ideology shall be prohibited”. Section 104 provides that the termination of an employment contract is deemed to be arbitrary dismissal if the termination is due to “sex, colour, religion, ideology, marital status, family responsibilities, or the female worker’s pregnancy, delivery of a child or breastfeeding; ... complaint or formal notice or instigates an action against the employer, unless the complaint, formal notice or action are of a vexatious nature”, and that reinstatement is to be ordered by the Court where dismissal was due to one of the enumerated grounds. In addition, section 29 provides that women shall be subject to all the provisions governing the employment of men “without discrimination in similar situations”, and section 33 prohibits employers from dismissing women on the grounds of marriage or during maternity leave.

The Committee recalls its previous comments urging the Government to take steps to ensure that the new Labour Law included provisions explicitly defining and prohibiting direct and indirect discrimination, on all the grounds enumerated in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, with respect to all aspects of employment and occupation, and covering all workers, including domestic workers, casual workers and agricultural workers. The Committee notes, however, that the Labour Law does not define discrimination and does not appear to prohibit indirect discrimination. The Committee also notes that, while discrimination in wages and discriminatory dismissals is prohibited, not all the grounds set out in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention have been included. In particular, section 39 does not prohibit discrimination based on race, colour, political opinion, national extraction or social origin; and race, political opinion, national extraction and social origin are absent from the list of prohibited grounds in section 104. The Committee notes that protection against discrimination in “access to vocational training, access to employment and to particular occupations, and terms and conditions of employment”, as set out in Article 1(3) of the Convention, is not covered by the Labour Law, with the exception of wages and dismissal. The Committee also notes that pursuant to section 2, the Labour Law does not apply to civil servants and public legal entities or “domestic servants and persons regarded as such, including agricultural workers, security house-guards, nannies, drivers and cooks” performing work for the employer or the employer’s family members, except for certain specified provisions, which do not include those relating to discrimination. The Committee recalls that legal provisions adopted to give effect to the Convention should include at least all the grounds of discrimination specified in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, and should apply to all aspects of employment and occupation (General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, 2012, paragraphs 749 and 856). The Committee further recalls that the purpose of the Convention is to protect all persons against discrimination, and no provision in the Convention limits its scope with respect to individuals or branches of activity (see General Survey, 2012, paragraph 733). Noting the Government’s reference to the adoption of Legislative Decree No. 48 of 2010 regarding the civil service, the Committee asks the Government to provide a copy of the Decree and indicate the specific provisions of relevance to the implementation of the Convention. The Committee also asks the Government to provide detailed information on the steps taken to ensure that all workers, including those excluded from the scope of the non-discrimination provisions in the Labour Law, are protected against both direct and indirect discrimination, with respect to all aspects of employment and occupation, including access to employment, vocational training and terms and conditions of employment, based on all the grounds enumerated in the Convention. The Committee also asks the Government to consider further revising the Labour Law with a view to giving full legislative expression to the principle of the Convention, and to provide information on any steps taken in this regard.

Discrimination based on sex. The Committee had been raising concerns regarding the provisions of the previous Labour Code which foresaw an Order being made prescribing the occupations and jobs that could be offered to women as alternative employment in the event of marriage. The Committee urged the Government to ensure that such a provision was not included in the new legislation and expressed the hope that any restrictions on women’s employment would be strictly limited to maternity protection. The Committee notes, however, that while the new Labour Law does not replicate this provision, it provides for a potentially much broader prohibition on the employment of women, as section 31 provides that the Minister shall issue a decision determining the work in which the employment of women is prohibited. The Committee recalls that protective measures for women may be broadly categorized into those aimed at protecting maternity in the strict sense, which come within the scope of Article 5 of the Convention. Those aimed at protecting women generally because of their sex or gender, based on stereotypical perceptions about their capabilities and appropriate role in society, which are contrary to the Convention and constitute obstacles to the recruitment and employment of women (see General Survey, 2012, paragraph 839). The Committee urges the Government to take steps to ensure that protective measures applicable to women are limited to maternity protection in the strict sense, and that any provisions otherwise constituting an obstacle to the recruitment and employment of women are repealed and any such measures withdrawn. Please provide information of the specific measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Sexual harassment. The Committee notes that the opportunity was not taken in the course of the revision of the Labour Code to include a provision expressly defining and prohibiting sexual harassment in employment and occupation. The Committee notes that the Government again asserts that the provisions of the Penal Code are sufficient, and that in addition a complainant could submit a complaint of discrimination to the Ministry of Labour. The Committee recalls that the Penal Code addresses rape and other forms of sexual assault, but does not address the full range of behaviour that constitutes sexual harassment in employment and occupation. The Committee considers that addressing sexual harassment through criminal proceedings is not sufficient due to the sensitivity of the issue, the higher burden of proof, and the limited range of behaviour addressed. The Committee also considers that the non-discrimination provisions in the Labour Law are not sufficient, as they cover only wages and termination of employment and do not expressly define and prohibit all forms of sexual harassment. The Committee recalls that sexual harassment is a serious manifestation of sex discrimination and a violation of human rights, and requires effective measures to prevent and prohibit it, which should address both quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment (General Survey, 2012, paragraph 789). The Committee once again urges the Government to take steps to define and prohibit expressly sexual harassment in employment and occupation, encompassing both quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment. The Committee also asks the Government to take practical measures to prevent and address sexual harassment, and to provide detailed information in this regard.

Migrant workers. The Committee notes, as indicated above, that the Labour Law excludes from coverage of the non-discrimination provisions groups that will be comprised largely of migrant workers, namely “domestic servants and persons regarded as such, including agricultural workers, security house-guards, nannies, drivers and cooks”. The Committee recalls that it has been raising concerns regarding the particular vulnerability of migrant workers to discrimination, in particular migrant domestic workers. The Committee also recalls the adoption of Order No. 79 of 16 April 2009, section 2 of which provides that “a foreign worker shall have the right to transfer to work with another employer without violating the rights of the employer by virtue of the provisions of the law or the text of the labour contract concluded between the parties”. The request to change employers must be approved by the Labour Market Regulatory Authority (section 5). The Government indicates that between 1 August 2009 and 31 March 2011, out of 18,340 foreign workers who changed employer, only 215 did so without the employer’s approval (1.17 per cent). The Government indicates that a tripartite committee has been discussing the impact of the Order on the labour market, and has decided that a company has the right to specify in the labour contract the prohibition of a worker’s transfer to a competitive company for a defined period. The Government also indicates that an employer generally has the right to include in the employment contract a requirement limiting the approval of a transfer to another employer for a specified period. If the worker does not adhere to the terms of the contract, the employer can claim compensation from the court. The Committee considers that permitting an employer to stipulate limitations on the transfer to another employer in the employment contract could undermine the objective of Order No. 79 because, due to unequal bargaining power, migrant workers may be pressured to agree to such provisions, once again placing them in a position of increased dependency, and seriously affecting their enjoyment of labour rights and exposing them to discriminatory practices. The Committee asks the Government:

• (i) to ensure effective protection of all migrant workers against discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, colour, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin, and to ensure that they have access to appropriate procedures and remedies, and to provide information on concrete steps taken in this regard;
• (ii) to ensure that any rules adopted to regulate the right of migrant workers to change employers do not impose conditions or limitations that could increase the dependency of migrant workers on their employers, and thus increase their vulnerability to abuse and discriminatory practices;
• (iii) to provide information on the number of migrant workers, disaggregated by sex, occupation and country of origin, that have changed employers pursuant to Order No. 79 (with employer’s approval, without employer’s approval, and after the end of the work permit);
• (iv) to provide information on the nature and number of requests received by the Labour Market Regulatory Authority for a transfer of employer without the employer’s approval, disaggregated by sex, occupation and country of origin, and how many were refused and on what basis; and
• (v) to continue to provide information on the results of the examination by the committee to determine the impact of applying the Order and any follow-up thereto.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Equality of opportunity between women and men. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that women are free to choose jobs that suit them and their capacities, and that there are no legal obstacles limiting the jobs women may undertake. The Government states further that the Ministry of Labour uses its resources to develop and promote women’s skills in order to help them access the labour market and get promoted. The Government also points to the increasing number of women benefiting from vocational training (399 in 2005 and 601 in 2006). Even in the absence of legal obstacles to women’s access to certain areas of vocational training and to certain jobs, the Committee recalls that stereotyped assumptions regarding women’s aspirations and capabilities, as well as their suitability for certain jobs, continue to lead to the segregation of women and men in education and training, and consequently in the job market. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to take concrete measures to ensure women have access to a wider range of educational, training and employment opportunities, including in areas traditionally dominated by men, and to provide information on the steps taken in this regard.  The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of women and men in vocational training courses, including the nature of the courses being undertaken, and how such training has translated into employment opportunities for women. In the absence of a reply from the Government, the Committee again requests information on the specific measures taken under the National Strategy for the Advancement of Women to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation, including measures designed to overcome traditional stereotypes affecting women’s participation in the labour market, and on the impact of such measures. Please also provide information on the number of women and men, including foreign workers, benefiting from the incentives provided under the unemployment insurance scheme to enter the labour market or return to work, and under the National Employment Project, and the jobs that have been secured as a result.

National equality policy on grounds other than sex. Noting the importance of a national policy promoting equality of opportunity and treatment on all the grounds enumerated in the Convention, and in the absence of a response from the Government on this point, the Committee once again asks the Government to indicate the steps taken to adopt a national policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment on the grounds of race, colour, political opinion, religion, national extraction and social origin.

Article 3(a). Cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations to promote non-discrimination and equality in employment and occupation.

Article 3(d). Public service. The Committee notes the entry into force of the Civil Service Act No. 35, 2006, and Order No. 37 of 2007 promulgating the regulations to the Civil Service Act. A translation of these documents has not yet been made available. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to provide information identifying the specific provisions, including the content thereof, of the Civil Service Act and the accompanying regulations which are relevant to the implementation of the Convention.

Enforcement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there have been no cases of discrimination in employment received by the Ministry or the labour inspectorate. The Committee recalls that the absence of discrimination cases could indicate the lack of an appropriate legal basis or procedures for bringing a claim, or lack of awareness of the principles of the Convention, or of the existing procedures. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken to raise awareness of workers and employers of the principles of the Convention, and of available avenues of dispute resolution. In the absence of a reply to its previous request, the Committee again asks the Government to indicate whether the training programmes organized for the judiciary and law enforcement officials specifically address the issue of discrimination in employment and occupation.

Statistics. The Committee again requests the Government to provide statistical information on the distribution of women and men in the different economic sectors, occupational categories and positions, including information on the levels of remuneration.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes the communication of the Bahrain Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI) received on 15 September 2009. The Committee asks the Government to respond to the issues raised in the communication.

Legislative developments. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the draft Labour Code is still under discussion in the National Assembly. In its previous comments, the Committee had expressed the hope that a specific provision would be included in the new Labour Code defining and prohibiting discrimination. The Government had stated in a previous report that the comments made by the Committee had been taken into consideration in the revision process. In the Government’s most recent report, it states that as current customs which have the force of law do not distinguish between men and women in the workplace, an explicit text on the issue is not seen to be necessary. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the absence of discriminatory provisions in the legislation is not sufficient to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation, with a view to eliminating any discrimination in respect thereof, as set out in Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee considers that, given persisting patterns of discrimination in drafting a new Labour Code, it would be regrettable if the opportunity were not taken to clearly define and prohibit direct and indirect discrimination in all aspects of employment and occupation to ensure more effective application of the Convention. The Committee, therefore, strongly urges the Government to take steps to ensure that the new Labour Code includes provisions explicitly defining and prohibiting direct and indirect discrimination, on all the grounds enumerated in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, with respect to all aspects of employment and occupation, and covering all workers, including domestic workers, casual workers and agricultural workers. Please provide information on any developments in this regard.

Sex discrimination. Legislation. The Committee previously raised concerns regarding section 63 of the Labour Code, which according to the English translation published by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, provides that “the Minister for Labour and Social Affairs shall make an Order prescribing the occupations and jobs in respect of which an employer may offer alternative employment to a female worker because of her marriage”. The Government merely replies that the Bahraini legislation does not impose any restrictions on women in employment, and that the new Labour Code will grant protective privileges for women. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that the new Labour Code does not discriminate against women by authorizing occupations and jobs to be prescribed in respect of which an employer may offer alternative employment to women because of their marriage. The Committee also hopes that the new Labour Code will strictly limit protective measures for women to maternity protection.

Sex discrimination. Sexual harassment. The Committee notes that the Government had previously indicated that it would take the necessary steps to enact appropriate regulation on sexual harassment. However, in its most recent report, the Government indicates that it considers the existing provisions of the Penal Code punishing rape and sexual assault to provide sufficient protection against sexual harassment. The Committee recalls that sexual harassment is a serious form of sex discrimination, and it is important to take effective measures to tackle not only the most serious forms of sexual harassment that would constitute sexual assault, but the range of conduct in the context of work that should be addressed as sexual harassment. Referring to its 2002 general observation, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the definition of sexual harassment set out therein. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that the new Labour Code defines and prohibits sexual harassment at work, encompassing both quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on specific measures taken to prevent and address sexual harassment at the workplace.

Migrant workers. In its previous comments, the Committee raised concerns regarding the vulnerability of migrant workers to abuse and discrimination, particularly women migrant domestic workers. The Committee also drew attention to the fact that this situation is exacerbated by the sponsorship system, making migrant workers dependent on their employers and reluctant to make formal complaints. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the draft Labour Code will address issues such as hours at work, holidays and bonuses for domestic workers. The Committee also notes that 915 complaints were filed by migrant workers in 2008, compared to 1,070 in 2007. The Government attributes the decrease in the number of complaints to increasing awareness and care by employers, and better monitoring and application of the legislation, and indicates that the majority of complaints involved non-payment of entitlements upon cessation of activity, linked to the financial crisis. The Committee also notes the adoption of Order No. 79 of 16 April 2009, which relates to the procedures governing the transfer of a foreign worker from one employer to another. Section 2 of the Order states that the foreign worker shall have the right to transfer to work with another employer without violating the rights of an employer by virtue of the provisions of the law or the text of the labour contract concluded between the parties. The Committee also notes that the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, in collaboration with the International Labour Office, has carried out a study on the alternatives to the sponsorship system, and is in the process of considering this study.

The Committee would like to underline the importance of ensuring effective legislative protection, and the promotion and enforcement of such legislation, to ensure that migrant workers are not subject to discrimination and abuse. The Committee also considers that providing for appropriate flexibility for migrant workers to change their workplace assists in avoiding situations in which they become particularly vulnerable to discrimination and abuse. The Committee recalls the particular vulnerability of migrant domestic workers to multiple forms of discrimination based on race, colour, religion or sex due to the individual employment relationship, lack of legislative protection, stereotyped thinking about gender roles and undervaluing of this type of employment. Recalling the large number of migrant workers in the country, the Committee urges the Government to take steps to ensure that migrant workers have effective legal protection against discrimination in employment and occupation, in particular based on race, colour, religion or sex. The Committee also hopes that the provisions on domestic workers in the new Labour Code will provide effective rights and protection, including addressing the under-valuation and disadvantaged position of these workers. The Committee also requests information on the status of the follow-up to the study on the alternatives to the sponsorship system as well as information on any other studies dealing with the situation of migrant workers. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the following:

(i)    the number and nature of complaints filed by migrant workers or detected by labour inspectors, in particular relating to domestic workers, the sanctions imposed and the remedies provided;

(ii)   the number of migrant workers that have successfully applied to transfer to another employer pursuant to Order No. 79, indicating the reasons for granting such a change; and

(iii) whether and to what extent the labour contract between the migrant worker and the employer can limit the right of the worker to transfer to another employer pursuant to Order No. 79.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Article 1 of the Convention. Discrimination on the basis of sex. Sexual harassment. In its previous comments the Committee considered that the provisions of the Penal Code punishing rape and sexual assault may not adequately protect workers against sexual harassment as certain practices or behaviour may not amount to those crimes, but nevertheless constitute discrimination based on sex. The Committee therefore encouraged the Government to take specific measures to define, prohibit and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it will take the necessary steps to enact appropriate regulation on the subject in the future. Recalling its 2002 general observation on the topic, the Committee encourages the Government to take the necessary steps to prevent and prohibit sexual harassment at the workplace. It also urges the Government to take the opportunity of the review of the Labour Code to insert a provision covering this issue.

Article 2. National policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation. The Committee notes from the 2008 concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women that the National Strategy for the Advancement of Women has been adopted (CEDAW/C/BHR/CO/2, 14 November 2008, paragraph 18). The Committee also notes that under this Strategy, the adoption of measures to promote women’s rights and to eliminate traditional stereotypes about the role of women in society is envisaged (ibid., paragraph 22). In this regard, the Committee further notes that a new curriculum including human rights issues has been introduced with a view to empowering women in society, and a cooperation protocol concerning the review of curricula and educational material has been adopted with the purpose of eliminating stereotypical portrayals of women (ibid., paragraph 32). As regards the measures taken to promote the reconciliation of family and work responsibilities, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to pregnancy leave and flexible job opportunities. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken under the National Strategy for the Advancement of Women to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation, including measures designed to overcome traditional stereotypes affecting women’s participation in the labour market, and on the impact of such measures. It also requests the Government to indicate whether any measures are envisaged in this context to facilitate the reconciliation of work and family responsibilities. Please also indicate the steps taken to adopt a national policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment irrespective of race, colour, political opinion, religion, national extraction or social origin.

Equal access of men and women to employment and occupation. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the Ministry of Labour has taken some initiatives to promote women’s access to employment and occupation, including the organization of specific training programmes designed to provide women with the necessary skills to enter the labour market, “especially the occupations which are preferred by [them]”. From the statistics provided by the Government, the Committee also notes that women represent only 16.2 per cent of the total number of paid employees in the private and public sectors and they are mainly concentrated in the education sector where they account for approximately 71 per cent of the workers. The Committee encourages the Government to take measures to foster women’s participation in the labour market and their access to vocational training and employment of their choice. Please provide information on the implementation of these measures and supply statistical information on the distribution of men and women in the different economic sectors, occupational categories and positions, including information on their levels of remuneration.

The Committee notes that the Government has not replied to its previous comments regarding section 63 of the Labour Code (second phrase) which, according to the English translation published by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs provides that “the Minister for Labour and Social Affairs shall make an order prescribing the occupations and jobs in respect of which an employer may offer alternative employment to a female worker because of her marriage”. The Government had previously stated that section 63 of the Labour Code merely prohibits the employer from dismissing female workers due to marriage, pregnancy or giving birth. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that in the revision of the Labour Code the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs is no longer authorized to prescribe occupations and jobs in respect of which an employer may offer alternative employment to female workers because of their marriage. Please also provide full information on any restrictions or exclusion in respect of employment and occupation imposed on women, in law or in practice, due to marriage or family responsibilities.

Public service. Article 3(d). The Committee notes the Government’s previous statement that government employees are covered by the Civil Service Regulations and that a Civil Service Act was being discussed in Parliament. The Committee once again expresses its hope that the Civil Service Act will provide for equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of all aspects of employment, including recruitment, promotion, and allowances and benefits. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Civil Service Regulations and the Civil Service Act, as soon as they are adopted.

Enforcement. The Committee notes from the 2005 concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that several training programmes have been organized for the judiciary and law enforcement officials concerning the promotion and protection of human rights with a special focus on racial discrimination (CERD/C/BHR/CO/7, 14 April 2005, paragraph 6). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether these training programmes specifically address the issue of discrimination in employment and occupation. Please also provide information on any judicial or administrative decisions concerning the application of the principle of the Convention as well as information on any violations in this regard detected by the labour inspectorate, the sanctions imposed and the remedies provided.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Legislative protection. In its previous comments, the Committee raised doubts about the effectiveness of the legal protection available in the country to victims of work-related discrimination. The Committee noted, in particular, that article 18 of the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or colour and it does not appear to protect non-nationals from discrimination on the grounds listed in the Convention. This may leave the many foreign workers living in the country without legal protection from discriminatory treatment. Noting that the Labour Code for the private sector was being revised, the Committee thus encouraged the Government to introduce in the Code an explicit definition, as well as an express prohibition of discrimination in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Labour Code for the private sector applies equally to all workers in the Kingdom, irrespective of their sex or nationality. The Committee considers, however, that the insertion in the labour legislation of an explicit provision prohibiting discrimination with respect to all the grounds set forth in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention would ensure a more direct and effective application of the Convention. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will introduce in the new Labour Code provisions explicitly defining and prohibiting direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of all the grounds enumerated in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention and in respect of all aspects of employment. Please provide information on any further developments concerning the status of the new Labour Code for the private sector and provide a copy once it has been adopted.

Migrant workers. The Committee understands that Bahrain is receiving a growing number of migrant workers, mainly from Asia and some African countries, who are employed for the most part in domestic work, as well as in the entertainment and construction industries. The Committee notes from the 2005 concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) that migrant workers are facing serious discrimination in the enjoyment of their social, economic and cultural rights, especially as regards employment (CERD/C/BHR/CO/7, 14 April 2005, paragraph 14). Moreover, recalling that domestic workers’ employment relations fall outside the scope of the Labour Code, the Committee notes that women migrant domestic workers are particularly vulnerable to abuses and discrimination. In addition, the Committee notes the concerns expressed by the UN Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, about the effects of the sponsorship system in force in the country and its distortions resulting in an unequal distribution of power between employers and migrant workers, which increases the possibility of migrant workers being abused and exploited (A/HRC/4/23/Add.2, 25 April 2007, paragraph 62ff.). The Committee notes that this state of dependency of migrant workers on their employers seriously affects the enjoyment of their labour rights and exposes them to discriminatory practices. The Committee also notes that because of this system, migrant workers are often reluctant to make formal complaints against their employers. The Committee notes that in the context of the review of the Labour Code the abolition of the sponsorship system is envisaged (ibid., paragraph 64). The Committee further notes from the Government’s report that the new draft Labour Code, currently before the National Assembly, will cover some categories of workers previously excluded from the application of the Labour Code with respect to certain aspects of labour relations, including weekly rest and compensation following unfair dismissal. The Committee requests the Government to:

(i)    examine the current situation of migrant workers with a view to identifying the most effective measures to be taken in order to prevent and address the multiple discrimination in employment and occupation, based on race, colour, religion or sex, of which migrant workers, especially women migrant domestic workers, are victims, and report on the steps taken in this regard;

(ii)   provide information on the number and nature of any relevant complaints filed by migrant workers, especially domestic workers, before the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, as well as on any relevant violations detected by the labour inspectorate, the sanctions imposed and the remedies provided;

(iii) provide information on any developments concerning the abolition of the sponsorship system; and

(iv)  consider extending the scope of the Labour Code provisions to domestic workers, casual workers and agricultural workers.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that a draft Labour Code for the private sector has been submitted to Parliament for discussion and that the revision process has taken into consideration all comments made by the Committee of Experts. The Committee further notes that the Government’s very brief report contains no reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the new Labour Code will take into account the relevant points raised by the Committee regarding the application in law of the Convention, and that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. Article 1 of the Convention. Application in law. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s clarification in respect of article 18 of the Constitution that the term “origin” is intended to cover both social and national origin and that the term “creed” covers political and religious creed. The Government also reiterates its view that non-discrimination in employment was ensured by the fact that the provisions of the Labour Code equally applied to all workers, regardless of nationality, sex, religion, political convictions or any other ground referred to in Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that a dismissal on discriminatory grounds would be considered as dismissal without legitimate reason under section 110 of the Labour Code. Noting from the Government’s report that no cases concerning discrimination in employment or occupation have been brought before the courts, the Committee is of the view that this raises doubt as to the effectiveness of legal protection currently available for work-related discrimination. It also draws to the Government’s attention that article 18 of the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and colour and that it does not appear to protect non-nationals from discrimination on the grounds listed in the Convention, which may leave the many foreign workers living in the country without legal protection from such treatment. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to review and amend the labour legislation with a view to introducing an explicit definition and prohibition of discrimination in accordance with the Convention. Such a prohibition should cover all the grounds of discrimination referred to in the Convention, all aspects of employment, including recruitment, access to vocational training, all terms and conditions of employment, and dismissal. Please keep the Committee informed of any measures taken in this regard.

2. Recalling its previous comments concerning the exclusion of domestic workers, casual workers and agricultural workers from the scope of the Labour Code, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that these workers were protected under civil law. In addition, some provisions of the Labour Code applied to them and they had the right to submit complaints to the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions of the Labour Code and other relevant legislation that apply to domestic workers, casual workers and agricultural workers and the number and nature of complaints lodged by these workers with the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.

3. Discrimination on the basis of sex. Sexual harassment. Recalling its 2002 general observation on this issue, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that sexual harassment is prohibited under the Penal Code. Noting that the Penal Code establishes the crimes of rape and sexual assault, the Committee considers that these provisions may not provide adequate protection against sexual harassment at the workplace, as certain practices or behaviour may not amount to such crimes, but nevertheless constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any cases of sexual harassment in the workplace have been brought before the courts under the relevant provisions of the Penal Code. It encourages the Government to take specific measures to define, prohibit and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

4. Article 2. National policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that at present there is no specific policy on equal opportunities in employment and occupation but that the Government has endeavoured to strengthen legal texts with respect to equality between men and women. The Committee also notes from the seventh periodic report submitted by the Government under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD/C/4432/Add.1, 22 September 2004, paragraph 18) that a Higher Council for Women was established in November 2003. The Council has the task, inter alia, of elaborating a national plan for the advancement of women. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in the adoption and implementation of the envisaged action plan for the advancement of women and hopes that the action plan will contain specific measures to promote women’s equality in education, training and employment and occupation. The Committee also asks the Government to indicate the steps taken to adopt a national policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment on the grounds of race, colour, political opinion, religion, national extraction, and social origin.

5. Equal access of men and women to employment and occupation. The Committee recalls its previous comments concerning article 5(b) of the Constitution, which provides that the State guarantees reconciliation of the duties of women towards the family with their work in society. The Committee considered that there was some possible tension between this provision and the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment. In reply, the Government states that granting certain rights to women due to the nature of their social role in the family was not contrary to the principle of equality of men and women. The Committee notes that special measures to assist workers to reconcile family and work duties are indeed welcome. However, the adoption of such measures should bear witness to the recognition that family responsibilities are relevant to the family and society and not solely to women; therefore, efforts must be made to avoid stereotypical treatment of women that in practice may result in their direct or indirect discrimination in employment and occupation. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken to assist women in reconciling work and family responsibilities.

6. In this context, the Committee notes from the documentation supplied by the Government that various forms of discrimination against women in employment and occupation exist in practice, for instance with respect to access to vocational training and career advancement. It also notes that according to estimates for 2001 by the Central Statistic Organization the labour participation rate of Bahraini women was as low as 10.9 per cent, as compared to 44.7 per cent among Bahraini men. The Committee asks the Government to supply information on any measures taken to actively promote and ensure women’s equality of opportunity in respect of access to employment and occupation. While welcoming the Government’s commitment and activities to enhance the vocational efficiency of workers through skills development and training, it asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to promote equal participation of men and women in the broadest possible range of occupations, including regarding occupations that have been traditionally carried out by men. It also requests the Government to elaborate on the law and practice with regard to women’s access to judicial posts.

7. Further, the Committee refers once again to section 63 of the Labour Code (second phrase) which, according to the English translation published by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs provides that “the Minister for Labour and Social Affairs shall make an order prescribing the occupations and jobs in respect of which an employer may offer alternative employment to a female worker because of her marriage”. However, the Government states that section 63 of the Labour Code merely prohibits the employer from dismissing female workers due to marriage, pregnancy or giving birth. The Committee requests the Government to confirm that section 63 has been amended to the effect that it no longer authorizes the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs to prescribe occupations and jobs in respect of which an employer may offer alternative employment to female workers because of their marriage, and to provide full information on any restrictions or exclusion in respect of employment and occupation imposed on women, in law or in practice, due to marriage or family responsibilities. Please also indicate whether any orders have been issued under section 65 of the Labour Code with respect to the employment of women and their conditions of work and to provide the text of any such order.

8. Article 3(d). Public employment. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that government employees are covered by the Civil Service Regulations and that a Civil Service Act was being discussed in Parliament. The Committee hopes that the Civil Service Act will provide for equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of all aspects of employment, including recruitment, promotion, and allowances and benefits. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Civil Service Regulations and the Civil Service Act, as soon as promulgated.

9. Article 4. Measures affecting persons justifiably suspected of, or engaged in, activities prejudicial to the security of the State. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any legislative or administrative measure that may have been taken concerning persons justifiably suspected, or engaged in, activities prejudicial to the security of the State, which may restrict these persons’ access to employment and occupation, and the procedural remedies available to challenge such action.

10. Part V of the report form. Statistical information. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistics, disaggregated by sex, on the distribution of men and women (nationals and non-nationals) in the various areas of economic activities and occupations in the public and private sectors, as well as in the different areas of vocational training.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. Article 1 of the Convention. Application in law. The Committee notes the Government’s clarification in respect of article 18 of the Constitution that the term "origin" is intended to cover both social and national origin and that the term "creed" covers political and religious creed. The Government also reiterates its view that non-discrimination in employment was ensured by the fact that the provisions of the Labour Code equally applied to all workers, regardless of nationality, sex, religion, political convictions or any other ground referred to in Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that a dismissal on discriminatory grounds would be considered as dismissal without legitimate reason under section 110 of the Labour Code. Noting from the Government’s report that no cases concerning discrimination in employment or occupation have been brought before the courts, the Committee is of the view that this raises doubt as to the effectiveness of legal protection currently available for work-related discrimination. It also draws to the Government’s attention that article 18 of the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and colour and that it does not appear to protect non-nationals from discrimination on the grounds listed in the Convention, which may leave the many foreign workers living in the country without legal protection from such treatment. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to review and amend the labour legislation with a view to introducing an explicit definition and prohibition of discrimination in accordance with the Convention. Such a prohibition should cover all the grounds of discrimination referred to in the Convention, all aspects of employment, including recruitment, access to vocational training, all terms and conditions of employment, and dismissal. Please keep the Committee informed of any measures taken in this regard.

2. Recalling its previous comments concerning the exclusion of domestic workers, casual workers and agricultural workers from the scope of the Labour Code, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that these workers were protected under civil law. In addition, some provisions of the Labour Code applied to them and they had the right to submit complaints to the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions of the Labour Code and other relevant legislation that apply to domestic workers, casual workers and agricultural workers and the number and nature of complaints lodged by these workers with the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.

3. Discrimination on the basis of sex. Sexual harassment. Recalling its 2002 general observation on this issue, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that sexual harassment is prohibited under the Penal Code. Noting that the Penal Code establishes the crimes of rape and sexual assault, the Committee considers that these provisions may not provide adequate protection against sexual harassment at the workplace, as certain practices or behaviour may not amount to such crimes, but nevertheless constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any cases of sexual harassment in the workplace have been brought before the courts under the relevant provisions of the Penal Code. It encourages the Government to take specific measures to define, prohibit and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

4. Article 2. National policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that at present there is no specific policy on equal opportunities in employment and occupation but that the Government has endeavoured to strengthen legal texts with respect to equality between men and women. The Committee also notes from the seventh periodic report submitted by the Government under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD/C/4432/Add.1, 22 September 2004, paragraph 18) that a Higher Council for Women was established in November 2003. The Council has the task, inter alia, of elaborating a national plan for the advancement of women. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in the adoption and implementation of the envisaged action plan for the advancement of women and hopes that the action plan will contain specific measures to promote women’s equality in education, training and employment and occupation. The Committee also asks the Government to indicate the steps taken to adopt a national policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment on the grounds of race, colour, political opinion, religion, national extraction, and social origin.

5. Equal access of men and women to employment and occupation. The Committee recalls its previous comments concerning article 5(b) of the Constitution, which provides that the State guarantees reconciliation of the duties of women towards the family with their work in society. The Committee considered that there was some possible tension between this provision and the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment. In reply, the Government states that granting certain rights to women due to the nature of their social role in the family was not contrary to the principle of equality of men and women. The Committee notes that special measures to assist workers to reconcile family and work duties are indeed welcome. However, the adoption of such measures should bear witness to the recognition that family responsibilities are relevant to the family and society and not solely to women; therefore, efforts must be made to avoid stereotypical treatment of women that in practice may result in their direct or indirect discrimination in employment and occupation. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken to assist women in reconciling work and family responsibilities.

6. In this context, the Committee notes from the documentation supplied by the Government that various forms of discrimination against women in employment and occupation exist in practice, for instance with respect to access to vocational training and career advancement. It also notes that according to estimates for 2001 by the Central Statistic Organization the labour participation rate of Bahraini women was as low as 10.9 per cent, as compared to 44.7 per cent among Bahraini men. The Committee asks the Government to supply information on any measures taken to actively promote and ensure women’s equality of opportunity in respect of access to employment and occupation. While welcoming the Government’s commitment and activities to enhance the vocational efficiency of workers through skills development and training, it asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to promote equal participation of men and women in the broadest possible range of occupations, including regarding occupations that have been traditionally carried out by men. It also requests the Government to elaborate on the law and practice with regard to women’s access to judicial posts.

7. Further, the Committee refers once again to section 63 of the Labour Code (second phrase) which, according to the English translation published by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs provides that "the Minister for Labour and Social Affairs shall make an order prescribing the occupations and jobs in respect of which an employer may offer alternative employment to a female worker because of her marriage". However, the Government states that section 63 of the Labour Code merely prohibits the employer from dismissing female workers due to marriage, pregnancy or giving birth. The Committee requests the Government to confirm that section 63 has been amended to the effect that it no longer authorizes the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs to prescribe occupations and jobs in respect of which an employer may offer alternative employment to female workers because of their marriage, and to provide full information on any restrictions or exclusion in respect of employment and occupation imposed on women, in law or in practice, due to marriage or family responsibilities. Please also indicate whether any orders have been issued under section 65 of the Labour Code with respect to the employment of women and their conditions of work and to provide the text of any such order.

8. Article 3(d). Public employment. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that government employees are covered by the Civil Service Regulations and that a Civil Service Act was being discussed in Parliament. The Committee hopes that the Civil Service Act will provide for equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of all aspects of employment, including recruitment, promotion, and allowances and benefits. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Civil Service Regulations and the Civil Service Act, as soon as promulgated.

9. Article 4. Measures affecting persons justifiably suspected of, or engaged in, activities prejudicial to the security of the State. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any legislative or administrative measure that may have been taken concerning persons justifiably suspected, or engaged in, activities prejudicial to the security of the State, which may restrict these persons’ access to employment and occupation, and the procedural remedies available to challenge such action.

10. Part V of the report form. Statistical information. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistics, disaggregated by sex, on the distribution of men and women (nationals and non-nationals) in the various areas of economic activities and occupations in the public and private sectors, as well as in the different areas of vocational training.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s first and second reports as well as the attached documentation and statistics. It requests the Government to provide information on the following points.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that some of the grounds of prohibited discrimination mentioned in article 18 of the Constitution differ, at least in the translation available in the Office, from the grounds contained in the Convention. Specifically, the Committee asks the Government if the term "origin" covers social origin and/or national extraction, and whether the term "creed" covers political opinion. Noting that no mention is made of the grounds of colour and race, the Committee asks the Government how discrimination in employment and occupation is prohibited on these grounds.

2. The Committee notes the Government’s assurance that the Labour Code for the private sector prohibits discrimination on the same grounds as those prohibited by the Constitution. However, the Committee also notes that the Code does not explicitly contain either a prohibition of discrimination or a definition of discrimination. Accordingly, the Committee asks the Government to give consideration to reviewing the Code with a view to introducing such an explicit prohibition, with respect to all the Convention’s grounds.

3. The Committee notes that the Bahraini Constitution recognizes the equal human dignity of all persons, and that it guarantees, as to citizens, equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination based on sex, origin, language, religion or creed. However, the Committee also notes there is some possible tension between article 5 and article 18 so far as equal employment opportunities for women are concerned. Accordingly, it asks the Government to provide information as to how article 5 is applied in practice.

4. The Committee notes that the Code does not apply to government workers, and it accordingly asks the Government if there exists any other legislation specifically relating to such employees, and how discrimination is prohibited in accordance with the Convention. The Committee requests, in this regard, that the Government forward copies of the Civil and Military Regulations, as well as any other pertinent legislation.

5. The Committee notes that the Code does not apply to domestic servants, casual workers and many agricultural workers. Taking into account the large number of non-nationals working in the country, the Committee asks the Government to indicate how these workers are protected against discrimination.

6. The Committee notes that the Code prohibits dismissals "without legitimate reason", and asks the Government if, under the Code, a dismissal based on any of the grounds of discrimination contained in the Convention would be counted as a dismissal without legitimate reason.

7. Referring to its general observation of 2002, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on how sexual harassment is prohibited and prevented in employment and occupation.

8. Article 2. The Committee notes with appreciation the Government’s strong commitment to equal employment opportunities and the elimination of workplace discrimination, as expressed in its reports. It points out, however, that the reports contain little information as to any national policy of the sort required under Article 2 of the Convention. The Government is therefore requested to forward any information as to the existence and the nature of such a policy.

9. The Committee notes with interest the creation of the Committee for Human Rights. It asks the Government to provide information regarding the Committee’s activities and programmes specifically concerning anti-discrimination in employment, including any inquiries or recommendations it may have made regarding the impact of existing national legislation on the employment opportunities of women.

10. Article 3. The Committee notes the various Code provisions and related Ministerial Orders providing for a range of vocational training activities. In relation to these, it asks the Government for information regarding: (a) the activities of the High Council for Vocational Training, including its determination of training needs, its implementation of training programmes, and details as to the activities of any training institutes and centres created by it; (b) the activities and programmes carried out by qualitative councils for vocational training; and (c) vocational training provided for workers in the public sector. Additionally, the Government is requested to provide specific information on any policies and practices relating to these vocational training efforts that seek to ensure that the needs of groups subject to potential discrimination on any of the Convention’s grounds are taken into account.

11. The Committee notes that section 63 of the Labour Code permits an employer to offer "alternative employment to a female worker because of her marriage". It would be grateful if the Government were to indicate what this provision means, and how it is applied in practice. Noting also that section 65 of the Labour Code empowers the Minister for Labour and Social Affairs to make further orders "in respect of the employment of females and their conditions of work", the Committee request copies of any such Orders.

12. Article 4. The Committee asks the Government to provide relevant information regarding how compliance with Article 4 of the Convention is ensured.

13. Parts III and IV of the report form. The Committee asks the Government whether persons suffering from discrimination in employment prohibited by the Constitution may seek redress in the Constitutional Court, and if, in addition, they may have recourse to other courts on the same matters. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide information regarding any decisions by any such courts, as well as regarding any administrative rulings, that relate to matters of discrimination on any of the Convention’s grounds.

14. Part V of the report form. The Committee notes with some concern the disparity in labour force participation between women and men, both nationals and non-nationals. It therefore asks the Government for information regarding potential obstacles that women, as compared to men, might meet in attempting to obtain employment, to win advancement, and to avoid unjustified dismissals. At the same time, the Committee asks the Government to provide information about any initiatives it may have undertaken or that are being planned, legislative or otherwise, to encourage the hiring, promotion, and retention of women, in both the public and private sectors.

15. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s participation in the National Gender Statistics Programme. It asks the Government to provide any statistics developed pursuant to this participation (or any other applicable statistics), disaggregated by sex, regarding: (1) the relative proportion of women in public and private employment, broken down by type of position and category of work; and (2) proportions of women, relative to men and relative to women in the labour force, hired, promoted, dismissed, and receiving vocational training, in both the public and private sectors. In the event that the Government has not collected statistics of this sort, the Committee asks the Government to work towards developing such statistics. Please also indicate if the Government is considering collecting statistics, disaggregated at least by ethnicity and national origin, regarding hirings, promotions, dismissals, and vocational training of non-Bahrainis in the labour force.