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

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2006, Publication: 95th ILC session (2006)

A Government representative stated that the fundamental rights of freedom of association of workers were guaranteed under the Constitution, national laws and regulations, and that these were in conformity with his country's international obligations. Any aggrieved party could have recourse to the judicial system. With respect to trade union rights and the export processing zones (EPZs), he stated that EPZs were designed to attract foreign direct investment needed for rapid economic growth and increase in employment. After considerable initial successes, it was felt that the relationship between the workers and employers in this area had to be brought into conformity with the general laws, and the EPZ Workers' Association and Industrial Relations Act of 2004 fulfilled this need. The requirement that 30 per cent of the workers had to express a desire to form a workers' association and that, in the ensuing referendum, there should be a participation of at least 50 per cent and over 50 per cent of the voters should be in favour of establishing the association, were procedural issues which also provided guidance in the formation of the association for the first time in an industrial unit. He understood that the Committee of Experts had not raised any questions on the rest of the procedures provided for in the Act and added that the Act was balanced since the same percentages would apply, mutatis mutandis, if the association were to be deregistered. He further stated that as of 1 November 2006, full association rights would be available in the EPZs and that the statistical information requested by the Committee of Experts would become available. With respect to the comments by the Committee of Experts that there was a lack of legislative protection against acts of interference, the speaker agreed that there should not be any interference and that measures had to be taken if any interference was found in practice. With respect to which action constituted "interference", this was clearly spelled out in section 41 of Chapter IV of the EPZ Act.

With respect to collective bargaining and the requirement that the registration of a trade union needed 30 per cent support of the workers in the establishment, the speaker was of the view that that this did not contravene the provisions of Convention No. 98. He clarified that the objective of this requirement was to ensure broader representation of the workers in a union and to avoid mushrooming of trade unions, thereby helping to maintain unity of the workers in the establishment. The provisions in the EPZ Act were exactly in line with the provisions applicable to the rest of the country, to which neither workers nor employers had opposed. When the Committee of Experts raised the issue of 30 per cent, the basic question was whether this actually hampered the ability of the workers in the exercise of their rights. There had been so few instances of this nature that there had not been any demand for change. With respect to the Committee of Experts' comments on the practice of determining wage rates and other employment conditions in the public sector, the speaker indicated that he was not quite clear about the comments. He referred to the procedure of tripartite wage commissions with the government playing a key balancing role. From the Committee of Experts' comments, it appeared that the suggestion was to do away with the wage commissions and to let market forces work in an unfettered manner. He asked if this was the true implication of the comments. Given the imperfections in the market, and the asymmetry of information, the weaker group (i.e. the workers) might lose. With respect to the draft Labour Code, he indicated that the process was taking much longer than expected and that he was not in a position to predict the outcome of the discussions. All groups in the country had the draft and were commenting on it to ensure that the Code, once approved, had the full endorsement of all stakeholders.

The Worker members stated that the problems of application identified by the Committee of Experts were of different natures. First of all, regarding restrictions of freedom of association in export processing zones, the Government should eliminate required percentages and imposed procedures that made the establishment of trade unions difficult. At the same time, measures should be taken with respect to the lack of legal protection from interference, including adequate penalties; the required percentage related to collective bargaining should be lowered; the practice of determining wages and other employment conditions in the public sector through tripartite wage commissions appointed by the Government should be modified; and the drafting of the new Labour Code should be finalized. The Committee of Experts had most probably highlighted this case with a footnote because all of the comments, with a few exceptions, had been the same for the last ten years. This case concerned a continued failure to apply the Convention. However, Bangladesh was also on this list of individual cases due to recent serious developments that unfortunately illustrated the results of inadequate collective negotiations - that is to say social chaos, the death of several victims and scores injured, as well as important material damages. The facts spoke for themselves and should prompt the Government to radically and rapidly change its course.

The Employer members had expected more from the Government's statement than what they had received today. They recalled that the phenomenon of acts of interference in freedom of association went beyond the issue of EPZs. The Committee had been discussing matters related to the 1969 Industrial Relations Ordinance since 1987. Nothing regarding this law was heard from the Government today. Referring to the question of the determination of wage rates and conditions of work in the public sector, the Employer members emphasized that in its report the Committee of Experts had required the Government to enable the development of a voluntary collective bargaining system rather than imposing a pre-determined system. In their opinion, the heart of the matter was whether the Government would implement Article 4 of Convention No. 98. With regard to the draft Labour Code to which the Government representative repeatedly referred, the Employer members acknowledged its importance, given that in theory it could resolve all outstanding matters, but regretted not having received concrete and substantive information. Without intending to minimize the importance of the issues rooted in the 30 and 50 per cent voting requirements, they noted that Convention No. 98 did not define in concrete terms the level of trade union membership required for establishment. This notwithstanding, the Government had to revise its legal requirements to ensure the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining. In concluding, the Employer members indicated that they wanted the Government to provide a more complete picture of the labour reform under way in Bangladesh, especially given the long history of the issues at hand.

The Government member of Malaysia thanked the Government representative for the information he provided and urged the Committee to take into account what he considered to be a demonstrated commitment by the Government to preserve and protect labour rights. He trusted that the Government had assumed its responsibility in reforming the labour legislation in line with the observations of the Committee of Experts and invited the latter to assist the Government in its efforts, in particular in its effort to promote social dialogue.

The Government member of China urged the Committee to appreciate the efforts made by the Government of Bangladesh to implement policies and programmes for the protection of labour rights and the welfare of the people. In his view, the Government fully respected international labour standards and was committed to their gradual implementation. The speaker also endorsed the practice followed by the Government of Bangladesh as regarded the application of ILO principles on the right to organize and bargain collectively in EPZs and invited the Governing Body to recognize the progress made. In closing, he expressed the hope that the Committee of Experts would make greater efforts to cooperate with the Government and allow for greater latitude in the design and implementation of its social policy.

The Government member of Sri Lanka welcomed the efforts made by the Government of Bangladesh to work closely with the ILO for the preservation and protection of labour rights. He expressed his confidence in the Government's commitment to honour its obligations under ILO Conventions and noted that Bangladesh was in the final stages of the adoption of its new Labour Code. He reiterated the request of the Non-Aligned Movement countries regarding the working methods of the Conference Committee to the effect that the selection of the individual cases should be made in a fully transparent and predictable manner according to the criterion of balanced geographical distribution.

The Government member of Uzbekistan stated that Bangladesh had made continued efforts to apply ILO standards. A legal basis had been created to defend freedom of association and to introduce collective bargaining. With respect to workers' rights in EPZs, which had been created to attract foreign investment and employing more than 150,000 workers, the Government had given priority to the respect of a fair wage structure and the preservation of workers' interests. Finally, the country had made certain progress in the application of the Convention which deserved to be supported, as did the continuous dialogue between the ILO, the social partners and the Government of Bangladesh in the search for a mutually acceptable solution.

The Government member of Myanmar also expressed his support for the policies and programmes of Bangladesh that protected and promoted labour rights and the welfare of the workforce. In his view, the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 did not contravene the provisions of Convention No. 98, but rather offered workers and employers sufficient protection regarding their right to organise and bargain collectively. He trusted that through the gradual implementation of ILO standards the Government would attain the desired objectives and urged it to continue its cooperation with the International Labour Office.

The Government member of Belarus thanked the Government representative for providing concrete information. Notwithstanding the particularities of EPZs, Bangladesh ensured through its legislation the rights of workers in these zones and implemented policies promoting socio-economic development. The country was currently in the process of drafting a new Labour Code, in the preparation of which the Government was prepared to take into account a number of constructive recommendations by the Committee of Experts, an undertaking in which the social partners should also participate. Given the volume and complexity of this work, the Government should not be pressured to finish in haste or to set strict deadlines for the adoption of the Code. The speaker also stated that his Government fully supported the position of Bangladesh on the question of minimum trade union membership, which favoured the formation of strong and independent trade unions and promoted dialogue between government and workers. He added that this issue had not been studied sufficiently in depth and that the Office should conduct, for the benefit of member States, a comparative study on the relation between trade union membership and trade union effectiveness in terms of the results achieved. The Government of Belarus requested this proposal to be duly reflected in the conclusions of the specific case as well as in the Committee's General Report. In concluding, the speaker declared his Government's commitment to social dialogue and to achieving progress through cooperation. It was necessary to re-examine the Committee of Experts' recommendations, taking fully into account the information provided by the Government representative.

The Government member of Pakistan welcomed the statement delivered by the Government representative and urged the Committee to give due consideration in its conclusions to the steps taken in order to implement the Convention. Bangladesh had taken commendable steps over the years to overcome the immense economic and social challenges it faced. As a result of these efforts, Bangladesh had turned into a major textile exporter providing jobs to thousands of workers, the majority of whom were women. In closing, the speaker expressed the hope that Bangladesh would soon be able to discharge its legal obligations with regard to collective bargaining as envisaged in Convention No. 98.

The Government member of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that his delegation had noted the success story of the EPZs in Bangladesh, and how these zones had contributed to the economic development and employment generation in a country that had been adversely affected by globalization. He hoped that the Committee would recognize that developing countries needed some policy space in the early stages of development. He also hoped that the ILO would provide technical assistance for the settlement of the issues at hand.

An observer representing the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF), speaking with the authorization of the Officers of the Committee, stated that he had just flown in from Bangladesh and that the textile sector there had been in chaos for the past two weeks. Hundreds of thousands of workers were in revolt against wage levels fixed back in 1994, arbitrarily fixed piecework rates, and working hours which ranged from 14 to 16 hours a day. A number of workers had been killed, hundreds injured, and many arrested, and over 250 factories had been attacked, of which some were totally destroyed. Over 70,000 workers in EPZs were locked out. This situation was the result of the inability of workers to exercise their right to freedom of association and collective bargaining. There was no collective bargaining in the 4,600 factories in the garment sector, and only a handful of recognized trade unions. The 30 per cent threshold required to form a trade union effectively prevented trade unions from getting off the ground, and when they did they were promptly attacked. The ready-made garment industry was effectively a trade-union free zone. There was also widespread interference in trade unions. Companies often nominated worker representatives in workers' committees in factories. The worker representative on the wage commission established to deal with the current crisis had also been nominated by employers, but this nomination had been withdrawn in the face of uproar.

The speaker stated that prior to 1994, workers could form trade unions, albeit with no legal protection. With the enactment of the EPZ Workers Association and Industrial Relations Act, 2004, trade unions were now forbidden in EPZs and had been replaced by workers' welfare committees, which were forbidden to have contacts with trade unions or raise workers' issues. As of 1 November 2006, workers' associations would be allowed, but they would still be forbidden to have links to trade unions. The recent events should serve as a wake up call to the Government. The speaker was of the view that it would be difficult to change overnight from a climate hostile to trade unions to one characterized by mature industrial relations. For this reason, ILO assistance was urgently needed. He called on the Government to take responsibility for labour matters in the EPZs, to adopt and implement a new Labour Code providing for full protection of freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively, to abolish separate legislation concerning EPZs, and to strengthen labour law and its enforcement.

The Government representative stated that he would transmit to his authorities the comments of the Worker and Employer members. Regarding the Employer members' comment that there were no trade union rights in Bangladesh, he pointed out that the 2004 EPZ Workers Association and Industrial Relations Act provided for freedom of association in EPZs. With regard to the new Labour Code, he indicated that the draft had been submitted by the National Labour Law Commission to the Tripartite Review Committee with a view to updating it with comments from all stakeholders. He expected to receive a final draft shortly. In response to the concerns raised by the representative of the ITGLWF, he assured that the situation in his country had considerably calmed down. Regarding low wages and other conditions of employment in the public sector, the speaker maintained that these were based on recommendations of the tripartite Industrial Workers' Wages Commission. Finally, with respect to the question of voluntary bargaining in the public and private sector, his Government was of the view that the current legislation was designed to provide a fair and equitable wage structure for the public sector and to safeguard workers in less viable industries. Wages were determined by a tripartite wage commission. Furthermore, as a result of the Government's privatization process, wages in the sector were being increasingly set through free and voluntary collective bargaining. In conclusion, he stressed his Government's commitment to uphold workers' rights and constructively cooperate with the Committee.

The Employer members stated that the words "making efforts" and "progress" usually referred to something tangible. Yet, in the present discussion "efforts" and "progress" were empty words. During the Cold War, a chorus of governments had made statements similar to those of today. Today, the chorus claimed that Bangladesh was making efforts or that there had been progress. Yet, there was clearly none, especially in comparison to the cases before this Committee where efforts and progress usually referred to something concrete. If the empty criteria of efforts and progress used by the chorus of governments in support of Bangladesh were to be applied to other cases, no government would ever be considered out of compliance with ILO standards. The Employer members stressed that the process before the present Committee had to be a meaningful one. It was unacceptable to simply assert that there was progress; this had to be demonstrated. The case dealt with serious violations of a fundamental Convention and the conclusions of the Committee should reflect this reality.

The Worker members concurred with the Employer members with respect to the great seriousness of the case. The lack of adequate mechanisms for collective bargaining had led the country into a dead-end and the lack of political will was the root cause of the explosive social situation. And yet, the Government representative assured that he was unaware of any criticism voiced by workers in the export processing zones. Those who believed in the miracle of these zones, without unions and bargaining, would come to understand that this was but a mirage about to evaporate. Faced with this urgency, the ILO should take action, together with the social partners and the Government, to find a lasting solution permitting a way out of the impasse and to respond correctly to the observations of the Committee of Experts. The Worker members asked that this case be placed in a special paragraph of the Committee's report due to the continued failure to apply the Convention and the worrying current situation.

The Government representative regretted that the conclusions adopted by the Committee did not adequately reflect the responses and replies given by his Government and, as such, did not take due account of the elements covered by the discussion of the case.

The Chairperson indicated that the form of the conclusions and the procedure followed were in accordance with the usual practice of the Committee, as explained during the information session organized by the secretariat the previous week. The debate on the conclusions to the case had been closed and any further questions could only be raised when the Committee's report was considered in plenary.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government representative and the debate that followed.

The Committee observed that the pending issues referred to: restrictions to the right to organize and bargain collectively in export processing zones; the absence of legal protection against acts of interference in organizations; excessive representativity requirements provided for in the law regarding the exercise of the right to bargain collectively; and the determination of wage rates and other employment conditions in the public sector by tripartite pay committees appointed by the Government, rather than letting the parties concerned bargain freely on these issues.

The Committee noted the Government's explanations in respect of the Export Processing Zones Act and its statement that the process of framing the draft Labour Code was taking longer than expected.

The Committee expressed its deep concern that the Government was not in a position to provide information on concrete steps or progress made in respect of the matters raised by the Committee of Experts. It underlined the necessity of settling without delay the persistent problems raised concerning the application of the Convention, and the importance of providing appropriate protection against acts of interference and of guaranteeing the exercise of free and voluntary collective bargaining in the public and private sectors, without legal impediments. The Committee emphasized in particular the serious difficulties that prevailed as regarded the exercise of workers' rights in export processing zones, and urged the Government to take measures to eliminate the remaining obstacles in law and in practice. The Committee trusted that the necessary measures would be taken in the very near future in full consultation with the social partners concerned and that the authorities would soon adopt a Labour Code that guaranteed the full application of the Convention in law and in practice. The Committee urged the Government to make all efforts in this regard and requested it to provide the Committee of Experts with a complete report on all the measures taken in this respect and its observations on the statements concerning severe social unrest raised in the Committee. It urged the Government to request the technical assistance of the Office in order to resolve these grave problems and to put in place durable solutions.

The Committee decided to include its conclusions in a special paragraph of its report.

The Government representative regretted that the conclusions adopted by the Committee did not adequately reflect the responses and replies given by his Government and, as such, did not take due account of the elements covered by the discussion of the case.

The Chairperson indicated that the form of the conclusions and the procedure followed were in accordance with the usual practice of the Committee, as explained during the information session organized by the secretariat the previous week. The debate on the conclusions to the case had been closed and any further questions could only be raised when the Committee's report was considered in plenary.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2004, Publication: 92nd ILC session (2004)

A Government representative stressed his Government's total commitment to the protection of labour rights in the country. Bangladesh had ratified 33 ILO Conventions, including seven of the eight core Conventions. He pointed out that the right to organize and collective bargaining of workers and employers in Bangladesh was safeguarded under the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969. The rights accorded to the workers and employers under this Ordinance related to protection against unfair labour practices on the part of employers and workers (sections 15 and 16), and conditions of service to remain unchanged while an application for registration was pending. The IRO also prohibited the transfer of the president and general secretary of a trade union. At the same time, a worker refusing to participate in any illegal strike was accorded protection under the provisions of the IRO. Any contravention of these provisions of the IRO was punishable under the Ordinance.

Secondly, the IRO required that, for the registration of a trade union in any establishment, it should have the support and membership of at least 30 per cent of the workers employed in that particular establishment. This requirement for registration of a trade union did not contravene the intent of the provisions of Convention No. 98, nor did it infringe upon the rights of workers to form trade unions. The objective of this position was to ensure broader and more representative workers' bodies and to maintain the unity of the workers in the establishment. He underscored that none of the social partners in the country opposed these provisions in the IRO. Similarly, with regard to recognition of a trade union as the collective bargaining agent (CBA), the present IRO required the trade union to have the support of 30 per cent of the total workforce in that establishment. In order to develop sound industrial relations, the CBA was determined in the most democratic manner - through elections. This promoted effective representation of the workers and protected the rights of workers in the establishment. Neither the workers nor the employers within the country had raised any issue regarding this provision.

Regarding the question of trade union rights of workers in the export processing zones (EPZs), some recent developments were worth mentioning. The EPZs had been an astounding success story in Bangladesh. They had contributed significantly towards the country's economic development in terms of foreign direct investment, exports and employment generation. The EPZs alone contributed to 19 per cent of the country's total exports and employed about 130,000 workers. Clearly the EPZs made a significant contribution to reducing poverty in Bangladesh. Moreover, studies undertaken by international firms such as the Société Générale de Surveillance (SGS), Gherzi and others showed that workers in these EPZs enjoyed better working conditions, in terms of health and hygiene, and safety and security as well as financial benefits, compared to those working in the comparable industries outside the EPZs. Recently the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) had taken a number of reform measures. These reforms provided for representation in the Workers' Welfare Committee (WWC) in the EPZ through elections. The WWC was the workers' representative body in the EPZ. Earlier, representation to the WWC was based on selection. The instructions also provided legal protection to the members of the WWCs in the event of any disciplinary action taken by employers in EPZs. With the reform of the instructions, workers' representatives in the EPZ could now discuss with the management matters related to job security, wages and other financial packages.

Additionally, the renowned firm SGS had concluded its auditing of the employment conditions, wage structure of EPZ workers and grievance-handling mechanisms followed in EPZs. The firm also reviewed the BEPZA instructions and performance of workers' welfare committees. The findings of SGS, the independent audit firm, suggested that BEPZA instructions were much more effective in addressing workers' benefits, employment conditions and wages issues. The report also concluded that 65 per cent of the surveyed workers did not consider traditional trade unions of Bangladesh to be an effective means of addressing workers' issues in the EPZs. The overall assessment of the training programme was favourable and the report also stressed the need for additional training in order to strengthen WWCs for a sound industrial relations environment within the EPZs. The Government representative concluded by emphasizing that the ILO was a unique international organization due to its tripartite structure. This was the strength and spirit of the ILO and should be fully respected in all its activities.

The Worker members thanked the Government representative for the information that he had provided. The last time that the case of Bangladesh had been discussed was in 1994. In its observation, the Committee of Experts noted violations of Convention No. 98 in the four following respects: (1) the protection of workers' and employers' organizations against acts of interference by each other; (2) trade union rights in EPZs; (3) obstacles to free and voluntary collective bargaining in the private sector; and (4) the restriction on free and voluntary collective bargaining in the public sector, particularly in view of the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions.

With regard to acts of interference, the Committee of Experts indicated in its observation that this practice violated Article 2 of the Convention, which prohibited acts of interference by organizations of workers and employers in each other's affairs. The Worker members supported the comments of the Committee of Experts when it requested the Government to adopt specific measures, combined with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to prevent acts of interference. With respect to union rights in the EPZs, the Government indicated that it had adopted a declaration allowing workers in these zones the right of association and other facilities as of 1 January 2004. The Government should immediately provide this declaration so that the Committee of Experts could examine it. It would also be desirable to know whether the declaration was applied in practice and, if it was not, an explanation as to the reasons why. The interference in free and voluntary collective bargaining in the private sector and the restriction on free and voluntary collective bargaining in the public sector were problems which the Conference Committee had been discussing for several years. In the past, the Committee of Experts had requested the Government to lower the required threshold for union registration and to modify section 22 of its 1969 Ordinance so that it conformed with the provisions of the Convention. With respect to free and voluntary collective bargaining in the public sector, the Government interfered in the negotiation of wages, in particular through the tripartite wages commissions which it appointed. This situation was unacceptable. Moreover, the Committee of Experts noted that the Government had not submitted information on its current revision of the Labour Code.

In 1994, the Conference Committee had discussed a number of points raised by the Committee of Experts, with the exception of those relating to EPZs. The Government representative at that time had concluded the discussion by saying that he hoped that the following year he would be in a position to inform the Committee that all the problems mentioned in the observations of the Committee of Experts had been resolved. Yet, ten years later, the only progress that could be noted was the adoption of the declaration on the right of association in EPZs. Furthermore, it had to be verified whether it was in conformity with Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention. Moreover, since 1994, acts of interference and obstruction to free and voluntary collective bargaining in the private and public sectors had not been addressed. For more than ten years, the problems had been the same. The Committee of Experts had been making the same comments and the Government the same remarks. In this regard, it was difficult to believe in the good faith of the Government or its ability to put into practice the requirements of the Convention.

The Employer members indicated that the present case concerned a number of critical points in law and practice and had previously been discussed by the Committee in 1994, and before then in 1987. Perhaps the Committee had let too much time pass before returning to the case. With regard to the first point raised by the Committee of Experts, namely the insufficient protection for workers' and employers' organizations against acts of interference by each other, they noted that there had been no new information and that the Committee of Experts had therefore requested the Government to adopt the necessary measures. They added that the rules in this respect were very clear.

On the subject of trade union rights in EPZs, the Employer members noted that the Government had referred to a declaration adopted in 2001, but had failed to provide the text of the declaration, which meant that the Committee could have no notion of its significance. The Government was therefore urged to provide a copy of the declaration. The Government representative had emphasized the importance of EPZs in the development of Bangladesh and other countries. In this respect, the Employer members noted that the situation was no longer the same as when EPZs had first emerged. The Government representative had acknowledged that workers in EPZs had had little social protection, but that changes were now occurring. The Employer members indicated that it made sense to achieve progress in this respect and that the Government's commitments needed to be fulfilled. However, more detailed information was required on the situation. Turning to the issue of the 30 per cent requirement for the registration of a trade union, which was necessary for its participation in negotiations at the enterprise level, they recalled that, although the Committee of Experts considered this requirement to be too high, no specific threshold was set in this regard in the Convention. They indicated that the Convention was mute as to whether trade unions representing a lower number of workers could play an effective role, and it was therefore necessary to make a distinction between legal requirements and practice.

They observed that the Committee of Experts had also raised the issue of the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions. The Committee of Experts had indicated that free and voluntary collective bargaining should be conducted between the directly interested workers' organization and an employer or an employers' organization, which should be able to appoint freely their negotiating representatives. The Government representative had been silent on this point, although he had provided some information on the working methods of the tripartite wages commissions. A number of speakers had also indicated that the provisions of international labour standards might not be so directly applicable in developing countries. In the view of the Employer members, these were issues which needed to be taken into account at the stages of the preparation and ratification of standards. The drafting process for international instruments should ensure that they were universally applicable, although this would only be achieved if developing countries played a more prominent role in the drafting process. In conclusion, the Employer members indicated that the Conference Committee had perhaps neglected this case for too long. They called upon the Government to review in full the current situation, paying particular attention to all the points raised by the Committee of Experts, which should be covered in depth in a report, to which copies of all the relevant legal provisions should be attached.

The Worker member of Bangladesh indicated that, concerning point 1 of the observation of the Committee of Experts regarding protection of workers' and employers' organizations against acts of interference by each other, on point 4 regarding the wage determination mechanism and on point 5 regarding the updating of the draft Labour Code, he supported the observations and action already taken by this Committee. On point 2 regarding the right to organize and bargain collectively in EPZs, the situation was not very clear. He had heard that draft legislation had been approved by the Cabinet for immediate enactment by Parliament thereby providing a solution to the problem. He emphasized that, if possible, consultations should take place prior to the adoption of such legislation. The workers' organizations had not been consulted about the proposed provisions. In addition, there already existed appropriate legislation - the IRO - in this regard. In order to restore collective bargaining rights to EPZ workers, all that was required was the repeal of the ban arbitrarily imposed to restrict application of the IRO to EPZs. Even if the enactment of new legislation complied with the provisions of Convention No. 98, the question of freedom of association and the right to organize in trade unions remained unresolved. He suggested that the Committee examine the text of the proposed law and recommend to the Government to proceed in a tripartite manner. On point 3 regarding the 30 per cent requirement for registration of a trade union and the requirement to have one-third of the workers as members in order to be able to negotiate at enterprise level, he requested that the Committee review its previous decision of asking the Government to lower the percentage. He pointed out that, in view of the national socio-economic context, maintaining the status quo in this regard would better serve the interests of all parties, including the workers.

The Government member of Sri Lanka welcomed the efforts taken by the Government of Bangladesh to cooperate with the ILO in the preservation and protection of labour rights in that country. He was confident of Bangladesh's commitment to its obligations under the various ILO Conventions which it had ratified. Moreover, the Government of Bangladesh had initiated the process to formulate a new legal framework to accord trade union rights to workers in the EPZs. He encouraged the Government of Bangladesh and the ILO to continue to work together to resolve all outstanding issues.

The Worker member of India expressed concern that, although the Government had ratified Convention No. 98 in 1972, it had not been implemented in law or practice. There was in fact general non-implementation of this Convention, particularly in the EPZs. In Bangladesh, whenever workers tried to form or join a union, they were dismissed for a variety of reasons or were treated in a manner that compelled them to quit. Moreover, the workers were not entitled to any social security benefits since there was no such social security in Bangladesh. Workers often received less than US$1 per day for 12 hours of work. Contractors and subcontractors employed these workers and treated them inhumanely taking advantage of their poverty and job insecurity. There were also instances where women workers were burnt to death when fires broke out in their EPZ garment factories that were locked from the outside. No inquiries, however, were conducted nor was compensation paid to the survivors. While there should be a climate for encouraging trade unions, in order to be registered, a union must have a membership of at least 30 per cent of the total number of workers in the establishment or group of establishments in which it was formed. This discouraged unionization to the satisfaction of both national and multinational enterprises. In contrast, in India, the Trade Union Act required 10 per cent of the workforce or 100 workers for union registration. However, in Bangladesh, foreign-funded NGOs had overpowered the trade unions. In conclusion, the Worker member requested that the ILO ensure that the workers of Bangladesh enjoyed the rights enshrined in Convention No. 98.

The Government member of Indonesia welcomed the sincere efforts being made by the Government of Bangladesh to establish a legal framework which accorded trade union rights to workers in EPZs. He also felt that the IRO, 1969, which did not meet with the approval of workers and employers in the country, did not contravene the Convention. Finally, he said that the commitment of the Government of Bangladesh to cooperate with the ILO and its mechanisms, as reflected in its ratification of a number of ILO Conventions, provided sufficient assurance of its seriousness in reinforcing the fundamental rights of workers in the country.

The Worker member of the United States explained that for some years the Government of his country had made available to developing countries certain trade preferences under the generalized system of preference programme (GSP). For a developing country to be able to take advantage of these trade preferences, it had to agree to meet certain conditions, including the fact of taking steps to respect internationally recognized worker rights as defined in the ILO's core labour standards. In accordance with the GSP statute, the AFL-CIO had filed a petition in 1991 requesting that Bangladesh lose its trade preferences under the GSP because freedom of association and the right to organize and collective bargaining were explicitly prohibited in EPZs in the country. Thirteen years later, after repeated promises by successive governments, these fundamental rights remained explicitly prohibited by law for workers in EPZs. In order to avoid loss of the GSP preferences, an understanding had been negotiated with the United States Government in January 2001 to recognize these rights in EPZs as of 1 January 2004, as recorded in an officially gazetted commitment. In the meantime, workers' welfare committees would be established in EPZs. However, the Government had once again decided to abandon its commitment and he understood that further negotiations had been taking place recently for another interim period of three years or more, during which time workers' welfare committees would be further developed. However, there was little evidence of any real discussions between labour and management on these committees. As the legislation drafted by the Government to meet its latest commitment for the new transition period failed to incorporate many of the understandings negotiated with the interested parties, he indicated that the AFL-CIO would renew its petition for the withdrawal of GSP benefits. As an explanation as to why the Government had bargained in bad faith for so many years, he indicated that the largest multinational company investing in EPZs in the country was from the Republic of Korea and was known to oppose freedom of association in EPZs, under threat of the withdrawal of its investment. He added that many brand-name companies purchased products made by the factories of the company concerned, even though some of them had adopted codes of conduct, thereby illustrating the difficulties of respecting workers' rights in today's globalized economy. He regretted that the workers' welfare committees, for which the ILO had provided support, appeared to be doing little to advance the right of workers in EPZs to organize and bargain collectively. He therefore called upon the Government of Bangladesh to respect its international obligations under the Convention and for the ILO to take a more aggressive role in ensuring that acceptable labour laws were adopted for EPZs which protected the rights set out in the Convention and ensured their enforcement.

The Government member of Cuba recalled Article 4 of Convention No. 98 which specified "Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers' organizations and workers' organizations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements." She considered that it was necessary to strike a balance between adequate means and the national conditions for the application of the Convention, on the one hand, and the provisions of the legislation, on the other. She noted the declaration made by the Government of the positive measures in EPZs, and reiterated her conviction that the Government would provide in its future reports on the application of the Convention updated and more comprehensive information on the measures taken to bring its legislation into conformity with the Convention.

The Government member of Pakistan said that it was a matter of satisfaction that the Government of Bangladesh was taking active steps to address the grievances of the parties concerned, as highlighted in the comments by the Committee of Experts, and was in the process of drafting a Labour Code. He expressed the firm belief that the Government would not only consider the recommendations of the social partners on the draft labour legislation, but would also remove bottlenecks and adopt laws that were in accordance with ILO Conventions. While elected workers' welfare committees were currently operating in EPZs, he expressed the strong hope that the new Labour Code would allow the establishment of trade unions in these zones and give full guarantees for the rights provided for in the Convention. He called upon the Government to enact legislation as soon as possible so that it could fulfil its obligations to the ILO.

The Government representative thanked the members of the Committee for the support expressed for the measures adopted in his country and for their other observations. He informed the Committee that wages and other conditions of employment in the public sector were determined through the recommendations of tripartite wages commissions, and therefore involved the participation of the parties concerned. Issues not covered by these recommendations were determined through collective bargaining. He also maintained that the rights of workers and employers were adequately safeguarded by the IRO, 1969. The protection provided by the Ordinance covered acts of interference by workers' and employers' organizations with each other. He added that the Labour Code that was being prepared updated existing labour legislation and had been drafted through a tripartite consultative committee. The draft legislation would guarantee many of the rights and freedoms set out in Convention No. 87. When information was available on the outcome of the negotiations on the Labour Code, it would be provided to the Committee of Experts. In response to some of the comments made during the discussion, he said that he was unable to comment on the claim that workers received wages below US$1 a day as he did not have the statistics available. He also indicated that the various rules and regulations applicable in India might not be fully adapted to the social and economic conditions in Bangladesh. In conclusion, he expressed his commitment and desire to improve the implementation of the provisions of the Convention.

The Worker members said that the Government's argument that the economic, social and cultural realities of a country and its level of economic development should be taken into account when examining the universal application of Conventions which had been discussed on numerous occasions. As the Employer members had highlighted, these discussions demonstrated that governments could never set aside the commitments they assumed when ratifying a Convention. As the Government had not shown that any progress had been made and had not expressed any interest in calling upon the technical assistance of the ILO, which had been offered in 1994, the conclusions should once again take up the conclusions reached in 1994 by the Conference Committee, which read as follows: "The Committee believed that the next report from the Government would make it possible to note real progress in the application of the Convention and, in particular, that the Government would be able to report next year on specific measures to guarantee the explicit protection of workers' organizations against measures of interference by employers in order to truly promote the voluntary application of collective bargaining agreements, in particular in small enterprises and in the public sector, and to amend the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act, 1980, to explicitly state that workers in those zones should benefit from the rights guaranteed by Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention. The Committee reminded the Government that technical assistance of the ILO could, to a great extent, contribute to helping the Government bring its legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention in these areas." The Worker members asked that their regrets concerning the failure to apply the Convention should be mentioned in the conclusions and that the Government should be requested to take the necessary measures as soon as possible.

The Employer members, with regard to the 30 per cent requirement for the registration of a trade union, noted the claim by the Government representative that this provision had not been contested by either of the social partners. While the Employer members believed that this might indeed reflect the actual situation, as it was a comfortable position for the organizations concerned not to have any competitors, it was not in compliance with the Convention. Competition between rival organizations needed to be tolerated and permitted. Although some interesting information had been provided during the discussion, this did not change the serious shortcomings with regard to the knowledge available on the situation in the country in relation to the application of the Convention. They emphasized the urgency of the case and requested the Government to provide a written reply containing full information on all the points raised by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee noted the statement by the Government representative and the discussion which followed. The Committee noted that the comments of the Committee of Experts related to the lack of legislative protection against acts of interference, restrictions on voluntary bargaining in the public and private sectors and the situation of workers in EPZs. The Committee noted the measures adopted to secure the representation of workers in welfare committees in EPZs. The Committee regretted to note that the Government had not provided information on its previous statement according to which these workers would enjoy the right of association as from 1 January 2004. Recalling with concern that for more than 20 years workers in EPZs had not enjoyed the rights set out in the Convention, the Committee urged the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary measures to ensure that workers benefited in full from the rights laid down in the Convention. The Committee also expressed the firm hope that the necessary measures would be adopted in the very near future to ensure full compliance with the Convention in relation to the remaining issues raised by the Committee of Experts. The Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information in this respect on an urgent basis in its next report to the Committee of Experts so that it could be examined at its next session. The Committee recalled that the technical assistance of the Office was at the disposal of the Government.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1994, Publication: 81st ILC session (1994)

A Government representative of Bangladesh described the steps being taken to bring labour legislation into compliance with the Convention. In particular, he referred to the establishment of a National Labour Law Commission in 1992, led by a senior court judge, which was tripartite in structure and included eminent legal experts. The recommendations of this Commission dealt with all points mentioned in the report of the Committee of Experts, and were submitted to the Prime Minister on 4 June 1994. In addition, the Tripartite Labour Committee headed by the Minister of Labour and Manpower as well as the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour Matters, on which members of the opposition were represented, would provide their input into the drafting of a comprehensive labour code. He hoped that next year he would be able to inform the Committee that all problems raised in the observations of the Committee of Experts had been resolved.

The Workers' members stated that the problems regarding the application of the Convention were serious and long-standing and had been reported on by the Committee of Experts for a number of years. These included restrictions on voluntary bargaining in the private and public sectors, lack of protection for workers' organizations against acts of interference, and the denial of the right to engage in collective bargaining for workers in export processing zones. In view of the work of the National Labour Law Commission, which had already made recommendations on revisions to labour legislation that would address current problems of non-compliance with the Convention, they expressed cautious optimism that reasonably rapid changes would take place. They asked that the case be discussed once again next year in this Committee, so that they might determine whether the planned changes had actually occurred.

The Employers' members also were to a certain extent hopeful and noted a measure of progress, particularly because of the difference in the posture of the new and democratic Government from that when the case had been previously discussed. Although the National Labour Law Commission had made its recommendations, he appreciated that their incorporation into legislation would be time-consuming. In order to hasten the process, he urged the Government to consider requesting technical assistance from the ILO to assist in determining whether the proposed legislation would comply with Convention No. 98 and related Conventions.

The Workers' member of Poland reiterated the declaration of the Workers' members, in particular referring to restrictions on collective bargaining for small businesses, the public sector and the export processing zone, and noted the long history of this case. With regard to export processing zones, he referred to the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, which stated that there should be no limitation of workers' freedom of association and right to organize and bargain collectively as part of any incentives offered by countries to attract foreign investment. Export processing zones were used as a pretext to avoid the application of basic workers' rights. He concluded by emphasizing that in such a persistent case as this, technical assistance by the ILO would not replace an absence of the goodwill needed for the legislation to be brought into conformity with the Convention.

The Government representative reiterated his previous declaration and confirmed his hope that the problems with regard to the application of the Convention would be resolved by next year.

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and the discussion which took place. The Committee believed that the next report from the Government would make it possible to note real progress in the application of the Convention and, in particular, that the Government would be able to report next year on specific measures to guarantee the explicit protection of workers' organizations against measures of interference by employers in order to truly promote the voluntary application of collective bargaining agreements, in particular in small enterprises and in the public sector, and to amend the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act 1980 to explicitly state that workers in those zones should benefit from the rights guaranteed by Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention. The Committee reminded the Government that technical assistance of the International Labour Office could, to a great extent, contribute to helping the Government to bring its legislation into conformity with the requirements of the Convention in these areas.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1987, Publication: 73rd ILC session (1987)

A Government representative noted that his Government had been requested to indicate how it intended to comply with its obligations to encourage and promote collective bargaining in public sector industries, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Convention, and what specific measures it intended to take against acts constituting a violation of the right to collective bargaining under Article 2. The Government had taken careful note of the comments made by the Committee of Experts. The trade unions, except for those mentioned by the Committee of Experts, considered the current legal provisions and the practice of appointing, on the Government's initiative, an ad hoc Wages Commission to fix wages in public sector industries to be acceptable. On many occasions, in fact, the trade unions had called for the establishment of such a commission on a permanent basis. The Government considered that the present arrangements to prevent interference in collective bargaining were sufficient. It was perfectly aware of the need to intervene whenever interference took Place from whatsoever source. The Committee could rest assured of his Governments' willingness to continue its positive collaboration and to reply to any questions that might be put by the Committee of Experts or the Conference Committee.

The Workers' members noted with regret that the information which the Government had provided did not contain all the elements expected. With regard to this Convention, the Bangladesh Employers' Association had made comments, the Committee on Freedom of Association had dealt with the situation, and as early as 1984 the Free Trade Union Congress had drawn attention to the restrictions placed on collective bargaining. The application of the Convention required that employers and workers should be able to negotiate, freely between themselves, collective agreements without government interference and without the government replacing the social partners. In the case under consideration, according to the comments made by the Committee of Experts and by employers' and workers' organisation, the Government so far, and in almost all instances, had intervened in such a way that decisions had been taken by the Government itself and not by the social partners. That was a great source of concern, and in the light of the report of the Committee of Experts, the Workers' members pointed out that, under Article 2 of the Convention, specific measures had to be taken to ensure full compliance with it. They were therefore extremely anxious that the Convention should be fully respected in Bangladesh.

The Employers' members noted that, in the first paragraph of the observations in the report of the Committee of Experts, mention had been made of the comments sent in by the Bangladesh Employers' Association. However, the report gave no information on the contents of those comments and it was therefore impossible to assess them. Furthermore, it was stated that wage rates were determined by ad hoc Wages Commissions appointed by the Government on which employers and workers were represented. However, that procedure could not be considered sufficient to ensure the free negotiation which the Convention sought to promote. Consequently the Employers'members also considered that further measures would need to be taken in order to meet the conditions stipulated by the Convention.

The Committee took note of the discussion of the case and, in particular, of the information supplied by the Government representative. It urged the Government to consider ways of fully guaranteeing the free exercise of the right to collective bargaining and its appropriate protection, in accordance with the Convention. It expressed the hope that the Government would soon be in a position to indicate that progress had been made in that connection.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report dated 19 September 2023 on progress made in the implementation of the road map of actions to address all outstanding issues in the complaint pending under article 26 of the ILO Constitution concerning this Convention, among others, as well as the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 349th Session (November 2023) requesting the Government to report on further progress made to its 350th Session (March 2024) and to defer the decision on further action to that session.

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 27 September 2023 and of the Trade Union Committee of International Labour Standards (TU-ILS) (a committee of the workers’ representatives from the National Coordination Committee for Workers’ Education (NCCWE) and IndustriALL Bangladesh Council (IBC)) submitted by the Government, as well as the Government’s response to the latter observations. Both the ITUC and the TU-ILS refer to matters addressed in this comment, pointing to legislative and practical difficulties in the application of the Convention. The Committee also notes the Government’s reply to the 2019 and 2020 ITUC observations alleging massive anti-union dismissal of garment workers.

The Committee notes the observations of the Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF), transmitted with the Government’s report.

The Committee notes the 2022 amendment to the Bangladesh Labour Rules (BLR) and the adoption in 2022 of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Labour Rules (EPZ Labour Rules). The Committee further observes from the Government’s statement to the Governing Body, within the framework of the discussions on the article 26 proceedings, that the Parliament approved an amendment to the Bangladesh Labour Act (BLA) in November 2023. The Committee has however been subsequently informed that the President has sent the amended law back to the Parliament for further consideration and firmly expects that the opportunity will be taken to address its pending comments. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the progress made in this regard.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide detailed statistics on the follow-up to complaints of anti-union discrimination and encouraged continued training of the relevant labour officials. It requested information on the functioning in practice of the Workers’ Resource Centre and expressed its expectation that the online database on anti-union discrimination would be fully functional. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that between 2020 and April 2023, 60 complaints of anti-union discrimination and unfair labour practices were received by the Department of Labour (DOL), out of which 39 were settled (37 settled amicably and 2 cases filed in labour courts) and 21 cases are undergoing investigation. The Government also informs on trainings and workshops concerning the standard operating procedures (SOPs) on unfair labour practices and anti-union discrimination provided to relevant government officials and workers’ and employers’ representatives. It further provides information on the Workers’ Resource Centre and a link to the online database on anti-union complaints. While welcoming this information, the Committee observes that the ITUC and the TU-ILS raise concerns as to anti-union tendencies of the security forces and anti-union discrimination by factories without investigations and dissuasive sanctions, as well as a backlog of labour cases in the courts. They allege that: there is a lack of appropriate procedures and remedies for unfair labour practice complaints in the BLR; DOL investigations of anti-union practices lack transparency and do not follow the SOPs; filing a case to the court remains a prerogative of the DOL, instead of the concerned workers; and there is a need for awareness-raising among workers on the online database. Taking note of the above, the Committee requests the Government to continue to engage in training activities of the relevant officials to ensure an efficient and transparent handling of anti-union discrimination complaints in line with the applicable SOPs and to provide the relevant statistics on the follow-up to the complaints, specifying the number and the nature of the sanctions imposed. The Committee also requests the Government to clarify whether, in line with section 213 of the BLA, a worker can address a complaint concerning anti-union discrimination directly to the labour court or whether referral to the DOL is a mandatory step in the procedure. The Committee further encourages the Government to promote the use of the online database among the workers, including through the Workers’ Resource Centre, and to work together with representative workers’ organizations on improving the functioning of the database.

The Committee also requested the Government to take the necessary measures, after consultation with the social partners, to increase the amount of the fines imposable for acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee understands from the Government’s statement to the Governing Body, within the framework of the discussions on the article 26 proceedings, that an amendment was made to section 291(1) of the BLA which increases the penalty for unfair labour practices and anti-union discrimination acts of employers (violations of sections 195 or 196A) from 10,000 Bangladeshi taka (BDT) (equals to US$120) to BDT15,000 (equals to US$136). While taking due note of this amendment, the Committee observes that the increase in penalties for acts of anti-union discrimination would still appear not to represent a sufficiently dissuasive sanction. The Committee therefore urges the Government to take the necessary measures, after genuine consultation with the social partners, to review the relevant provisions of the BLA so as to increase the amount of penalties imposable on employers for acts of anti-union discrimination in order to ensure that such acts give rise to a just reparation and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

In its previous comment, the Committee also requested the Government to provide further information on the outcome of the 5,407 labour-related complaints received and solved through the helpline in the ready-made garment sector and on the measures taken to ensure anonymity of the process. It encouraged the Government to continue to formally expand the helpline to other geographical areas and industrial sectors. While observing that the Government does not provide any details as to the outcome of the complaints or the measures to ensure anonymity, the Committee welcomes the Government’s statement that the helpline has now been expanded to all geographical areas and industrial sectors. The Government also indicates that 1,307 complaints were received between 2022 and 2023, out of which 1,210 were solved and 97 are being processed. Further noting the TU-ILS suggestion to conduct mass-level awareness raising campaigns among workers and to categorize the outcomes of the complaints to allow for appropriate remedial action, the Committee encourages the Government to engage with the social partners to further improve the functioning of the complaint procedure and to raise awareness about it among the workers.The Committee trusts that the helpline will contribute to a speedy resolution of reported labour complaints, including those related to anti-union practices.

Allegations of anti-union discrimination following the 2018–19 minimum wage protests. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to clarify its involvement in the investigations into the massive dismissals of workers following the 2018–19 minimum wage protests and to provide information on the concrete remedies applied in all cases of termination for anti-union reasons. The Committee notes with regret that the Government does not provide any updates in this regard and simply reiterates previously provided information. It adds that 29 committees composed of officials from the DOL and the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE) were formed in eight labour intensive districts to, among others, publicize about a newly introduced DIFE helpline and to dispose of issues relating to termination or dismissal of workers. Given the time that has elapsed since the 2018–19 minimum wage protests and observing that the Committee on Freedom of Association is also examining these incidents in the framework of Case No. 3263, the Committee expects the Government to ensure that, where this has not yet been the case, independent investigations will be conducted and, where appropriate, adequate remedies and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions ordered.

Case concerning dismissed workers in the mining sector. In its previous comment, the Committee expressed its expectation that the case pending against dismissed workers in the mining sector who were charged with illegal activities would be completed rapidly. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the case is currently pending at the District Sessions Court, Dinajpur and that despite several hearings having been scheduled, they did not take place due to requests by both parties for time extension. Regretting the delay in concluding these proceedings, which relate to incidents dating back to 2012, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the judgment and, in particular, to indicate any aspects of the case relating to alleged anti-union practices.

Allegations of anti-union discrimination in practice and of inadequate judicial response. The Committee observes the TU-ILS concerns that incidents of anti-union discrimination are very common and that cases in labour courts are lengthy and often dismissed. Recalling that improving measures to address instances of anti-union discrimination and unfair labour practices is one area of the Government’s road map established in the framework of the article 26 proceedings and recalling that the Government regularly reiterates its commitment to reduce the backlog of cases in labour courts, including through the development of conciliation and arbitration as alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, the Committee urges the Government to provide updates in this respect and expects serious and concrete measures to be taken to eliminate the occurrence of systematic anti-union discrimination in practice. The Committee further requests the Government to provide information on the average duration of judicial proceedings relating to allegations of anti-union discrimination.

Protection of workers in export-processing zones (EPZs) against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide detailed statistics on the follow-up to anti-union discrimination complaints brought to the competent authorities in EPZs. While taking note of the Government’s indication that, as of July 2023, out of the total of 7,192 calls received through the helpline established in EPZs, none were related to anti-union discrimination, the Committee observes that the Government does not refer to any of the other procedures that it had previously indicated were in place to ensure protection against anti-union discrimination, including inspection and monitoring by the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) and other complaint procedures. The TU-ILS suggests that statistics compiled by the Government should be published to be accessible to workers’ organizations. In line with the above, the Committee requests the Government once again to provide statistical information on anti-union discrimination complaints in EPZs, whether received through the helpline or otherwise brought to the attention of the competent authorities, and to indicate, in particular, their follow-up and remedies and sanctions imposed.

The Committee further recalls from its previous comment that a number of provisions of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Labour Act (ELA) needed to be amended to ensure that all workers covered by the Convention are adequately protected against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Committee’s recommendations will be placed before the Tripartite Standing Committee at the time of revision of the law and points to ongoing trainings on this matter provided by the BEPZA. The Committee also observes from the Government’s report under the Freedom of Association and the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) that the amendment process of the ELA started in July 2023, including consultations with the social partners, and should be completed by 2025. Recalling the need to substantially amend the ELA to achieve its compliance with the Convention, the Committee expects the Government to ensure that the pending issues highlighted in its previous comment, which relate to sections 2(48), 93, 115(2), 121(2)-(4), 151 and 157, will be duly reviewed and addressed in the ongoing legislative reform, so as to ensure that all workers covered by the Convention are adequately protected against acts of anti-union discrimination.

The Committee also requested the Government to provide its observations on the allegations communicated by the ITUC referring to widespread anti-union practices in the country, illustrated by the dismissal of 36 workers in two EPZ factories in April 2019 following unsuccessful attempts at collective bargaining. The Government indicates that the BEPZA does not have sufficient information to provide a reply on this point. Considering that the Committee does not have in its possession any other details in this regard, it invites the Government to forward the 2019 ITUC observations to the relevant EPZ authorities and invites the ITUC to provide any relevant details that may assist the authorities in providing their observations and addressing the denounced practices.

Articles 2 and 3. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference in the BLA and the ELA. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to take all necessary measures to broaden the scope of protection against acts of interference in the BLA and the ELA. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the applicable legal provisions offer sufficient protection against acts of interference. It also points to trainings, workshops and consultations with representatives of workers and employers in EPZs on the applicable legislation, promotion of labour rights and best practices. Taking note of the above, the Committee recalls that while the BLA and the ELA contain provisions which prohibit certain acts of interference, they do not cover all acts prohibited under Article 2 of the Convention, such as acts designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of the employer, to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the objective of placing them under the control of an employer or an employers’ organization and to exercise pressure in favour or against any workers’ organization. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again, including in the framework of the legislative reform, to engage in consultations with the social partners, with a view to broadening the current scope of protection against acts of interference both in the BLA and in the ELA. The Committee trusts that, in the meantime, efforts will be made to ensure that, in practice, workers’ and employers’ organizations will be protected from any acts of interference against each other.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comment, the Committee encouraged the Government to consider amending Rule 202 of the BLR, which prohibits certain trade union activities in a way that could impinge on collective bargaining. The Committee observes with regret that although the BLR were amended in 2022 and the TU-ILS submitted a proposal for amendment in 2023, Rule 202 has not been substantially modified. Observing the Government’s indication that this issue may be considered in further amendments to the BLR following the 2023 BLA amendment, the Committee trusts that Rule 202 will be amended to ensure that it does not unduly impinge on the right to collective bargaining.

Higher-level collective bargaining. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to consider further revisions to sections 202 and 203 of the BLA so as to clearly provide a legal basis for collective bargaining at the industry, sector and national levels. It also requested the Government to continue to provide statistics in relation to higher-level collective agreements concluded and in force. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) collective bargaining is conducted at the level of the enterprise or industry, except for wage fixation in the tea and shipping sectors, which are done at the sectoral level; (ii) despite provisions to this effect (section 210(3) of the BLA), employers generally fail to submit concluded bipartite collective agreements to the DOL, leading to a lack of statistics on this point but training programmes are being used to sensitize employers on this issue; (iii) when bipartite negotiations do not lead to an agreement, they are referred as disputes to the DOL and resolved through tripartite negotiations; and (iv) the DOL was involved in 34 such demands between January 2018 and May 2023, 32 of which were settled. The Committee also notes, from the Government’s report under the article 26 proceedings before the Governing Body, that the DOL has developed a road map on social partners’ awareness and capacity building for social dialogue and collective bargaining at all levels. Furthermore, according to the TU-ILS, workers’ organizations are in favour of creating a legal basis for collective bargaining at the sectoral and national levels. Taking note of the above, the Committee requests the Government to take, in consultation with the social partners, the necessary measures, including of a legislative nature, to ensure that collective bargaining is allowed and promoted at all levels, including at the sectoral and national levels, both in law and in practice. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to engage in training of employers to increase compliance with section 210(3) of the BLA so as to allow for collection of statistics in this regard.

Collective bargaining in the agricultural sector. The Committee requested the Government to provide any available statistics on collective bargaining in the agricultural sector and to clarify the functioning in practice of tripartite negotiations in the sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are 38 registered trade unions in the agricultural sector covering 6,834 members but that the DOL has not received any charters of demands from such unions. According to the TU-ILS, the excessive minimum membership requirement of 300 workers to create a trade union in the sector prevents trade union formation and collective bargaining. In light of the above and referring to its comments under Convention No. 87 on the minimum membership requirements, the Committee requests the Government to take, both in law and in practice, and in consultation with the social partners, active measures to promote collective bargaining in the agricultural sectorand to clarify the functioning in practice of tripartite negotiations in the sector, previously mentioned by the Government.

Determination of collective bargaining agents. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to clarify whether, in a case where no union reaches the required threshold to be recognized as the exclusive collective bargaining agent under section 202 of the BLA, the existing unions are given the possibility, jointly or separately, to bargain collectively, at least on behalf of their own members. The Government informs that if there are more unions in an establishment, they either elect a collective bargaining agent or the Director General of Labour can, upon application by either of the unions or the employer, hold a secret ballot to determine which union will be the collective bargaining agent for the establishment. According to the Government, in practice, at least one union reaches the required threshold to be the exclusive bargaining agent under section 202(15)(e) of the BLA. Further noting the Government’s indication that simplification of the determination process is being considered as part of the revision of the BLA, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard and to ensure that, where no union reaches the required threshold for the acquisition of the exclusive bargaining agent status under section 202 of the BLA, the existing unions can negotiate, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members.

Promotion of collective bargaining in EPZs. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide statistics on collective bargaining in EPZs and to endeavour to further amend section 180 of the ELA to ensure that the determination of collective bargaining agents is the prerogative of an independent body. The Committee also requested the Government to clarify the implications in practice of section 117(2) which does not allow any proceedings before a civil court for the purpose of enforcing or recovering damages for breach of any agreement. While noting the Government’s indication that Workers’ Welfare Associations (associations formed for the purpose of regulating relations between workers and employers – WWAs) can engage in collective bargaining and are performing their activities in full freedom, the Committee observes that the Government does not provide any information on the Committee’s previous comments. It also observes that the issue raised in relation to section 180 of the ELA (determination of the legitimacy of a WWA and its capacity to act as a collective bargaining agent by the Executive Chairperson) has been reproduced in Rule 195 of the EPZ Labour Rules. Furthermore, the ITUC alleges that the situation of workers in EPZs worsened with the implementation of the ELA, as workers can only join WWAs, where they may not be given the full scope of collective bargaining. In view of these concerns, the Committee requests the Government once again to endeavour to amend section 180 of the ELA and to take further measures to promote collective bargaining in EPZs. It also requests the Government to provide statistics on collective bargaining agreements in EPZs and to clarify the implications in practice of section 117(2) of the ELA.

The Committee also observes, from the EPZ Labour Rules that: (i) Rule 4 gives the Additional Inspector General discretion to shape the outcome of service rules and determine their conformity with the law; (ii) Rule 130(4) provides that the EPZ Wage Board can function with a quorum of 50 per cent of all members including the chairperson and one representative from workers and employers each and allows for proceedings in subsequent meetings not to be interrupted in the absence of any such member; and (iii) Rule 131(6) allows the chairperson to remove any member if it is contrary to public interest, for misconduct or any other reason. The Committee recalls that, according to Article 4 of the Convention, collective bargaining takes place between employers or employers’ organizations and workers’ organizations, and that collective bargaining must be free and voluntary and respect the principle of the autonomy of the parties (2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 200). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of these Rules in practice and, in particular, to ensure that Rule 4 is not used to limit collective bargaining.

Compulsory arbitration in the ELA. The Committee recalls from its previous comment that sections 131(3)-(5) and 132 of the ELA read in conjunction with section 144(1) allow for unilateral referral of disputes to EPZ Labour Court which could result in compulsory arbitration. Taking note of the Government’s indication that the Committee’s recommendations will be taken up by the Tripartite Standing Committee at the time of review of the ELA, the Committee expects the Government to ensure that the issue is properly addressed and recalls that compulsory arbitration is only acceptable in relation to public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6 of the Convention), in essential services in the strict sense of the term or in cases of acute national crisis.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee requested the Government to indicate whether trade unions in the public sectors previously referred to by the Government (sector corporations, city corporations and municipalities, port authorities, secondary and higher secondary education boards, water development boards, energy sectors, banks and financial institutions, power sectors, jute mills and sugar mills) have the right to undertake collective bargaining and to provide examples of collective bargaining agreements. While noting the Government’s indication that between January 2018 and May 2022 there were 32 collective bargaining agents formed in the public sector and the DOL settled 12 cases of charters of demands in 12 different public sectors, the Committee observes that the Government does not clarify whether organizations in all of the mentioned sectors can undertake collective bargaining and it does not provide examples of specific collective agreements.

The Committee further recalls from its previous comment the distinction made by the Government between public autonomous organizations, in which workers can form trade unions, and other public sector entities. The Government also indicated that only staff and not officers of public autonomous organizations can form trade unions. The Committee requested the Government to provide a list of public sector services or entities where collective bargaining is not allowed and to indicate the criteria used to distinguish between staff and officers for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in line with section 1(4) of the BLA, collective bargaining is not allowed for the Government or any office under the Government (except the railway department, posts, telegraph and telephone departments, roads and highways department, public works department, public health engineering department and Bangladesh Government press), security printing press and ordnance factories. In accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that, only public servants engaged in the administration of the State may be excluded from the scope of the Convention while all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (General Survey of 2012 on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 172). The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that collective bargaining is granted to all workers covered by the Convention, including public sector workers and public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. It requests the Government to clarify whether trade unions in the sectors previously referred to by the Government have the right to undertake collective bargaining and to provide examples of collective bargaining agreements concluded in the public sector. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the criteria used to distinguish between staff and officers for the purposes of collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining in practice. The Committee, in its previous comment, expressed hope that significant progress would be made to bring both the legislation and the practice relating to collective bargaining into conformity with the Convention. In reply, the Government informs about progress made in the promotion of effective conciliation and arbitration as a means of alternative dispute resolution. The Committee further notes the measures mentioned above in relation to higher-level collective bargaining and observes from the Government’s statement to the Governing Body during the article 26 proceedings that amendments were made to the BLA to provide for SOPs on expert support during collective bargaining. The Committee, however, notes in this regard that the ITUC alleges that trade unions face serious obstacles when carrying out their activities which is demonstrated by the low number of collective agreements signed, including in the garment sector where only four trade unions reached an agreement with their management through conciliation. The Committee further observes that, according to ILOSTAT, the coverage of collective bargaining in 2020 was only 1.6 per cent. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to step up its efforts in bringing both the legislation and practice in line with the Convention and to take active measures to promote collective bargaining as a means of achieving balanced and sustainable industrial relations.

Finally, noting the Government’s indication that all relevant ministries and departments have been engaged in the implementation of the road map established to address all outstanding matters contained in the article 26 complaint, and recalling the overlapping nature of these matters and those raised in the present comment, the Committee expects full and genuine engagement of the Government in addressing these issues. In particular, the Committee firmly expects any upcoming measures taken by the Government, including any legislative amendments, to duly take into account the Committee’s present and previous comments to achieve a timely implementation of the road map and full compliance with the Convention.

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

The Committee takes note of the supplementary information provided by the Government on 15 September 2020 in response to a complaint pending under article 26 of the ILO Constitution. ln light of the decision adopted by the Governing Body at its 338th Session (June 2020), the Committee proceeded with the examination of the application of the Convention on the basis of this supplementary information received from the Government and the observations submitted by the social partners this year, as well as on the basis of the information at its disposal in 2019 (see Articles 1 and 3 below).

The Committee notes that the mentioned complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution – alleging non-compliance by Bangladesh with this Convention, as well as the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) and the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87) – is pending before the Governing Body. At its 340th Session (October–November 2020), the Governing Body, in view of the information communicated by the Government on the situation of freedom of association in the country and taking due note both of the Government’s commitment to continue to further improve the overall situation and to address the outstanding issues before the supervisory bodies: (i) requested the Government to develop, with the support of the Office and of the secretariat of the Workers’ and Employers’ groups, and in full consultation with the social partners concerned, a time-bound roadmap of actions with tangible outcomes to address all the outstanding issues mentioned in the complaint submitted under article 26 to the 108th Session of the International Labour Conference (2019); (ii) requested the Government to report on progress made in that regard to the Governing Body at its next session; and (iii) deferred the decision on further action in respect of the complaint until its 341st Session (March 2021).

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2019 and 15 September 2020, referring to matters addressed in this comment and further alleging anti-union dismissal of 3,000 garment workers in June 2020 as part of union busting in three garment factories in Gazipur and Dhaka. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments thereon.

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

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide detailed statistics on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination received by the relevant authorities and their follow-up and to take the necessary measures, after consultation with the social partners, to increase the penalties envisaged for unfair labour practices and acts of anti-union discrimination, and to indicate the outcome of 39 mentioned complaints that gave rise to criminal cases. It also expressed its expectation that the measures taken by the Government would contribute to an expedient, efficient and transparent handling of anti-union discrimination complaints. The Committee notes with interest the addition of section 196(A) in the BLA explicitly prohibiting anti-union activities by the employer and providing for the establishment of standard operating procedures (SOPs) for investigating such acts. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that in case of alleged anti-union activities at enterprise level, it generally intervenes through tripartite consultations, including by setting up dedicated committees for rapid and effective remedial measures, which proved effective in the national industrial relations context, and that in case of serious allegations, there is scope for on-site investigation and referral to the labour courts. It also notes the details provided by the Government on the procedure established under the SOPs to follow up complaints received, which consists of seven stages (written complaint, verification, communication with the employer, investigation, resolution, record with recommendations and referral to labour courts). The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that: (i) following the adoption of the SOPs on anti-union discrimination, the handling of complaints has become easier and more transparent and the SOPs are referred to in the 2018 BLA amendment (sections 195(2), 196(4) and 196(A)); (ii) the upgrade of the Directorate of Labour (DOL) to a Department of Labour has been completed, resulting in an increase of manpower from 712 to 921, a considerable increase in the DOL budget, and the creation of two additional divisional labour offices; (iii) the software for the publicly available online database on anti-union discrimination is currently being upgraded and although the process is delayed due to recent reforms within the DOL and the COVID-19 pandemic, the database should be functional soon and once completed, it will include information on anti-union discrimination and unfair labour practices, conciliation, election of collective bargaining agents and information on participation committees; (iv) from 2013 to 2019, 270 complaints regarding anti-union discrimination and unfair labour practices were submitted to the labour office, of which 204 were addressed (52 cases referred to labour courts and 152 disposed of amicably through reinstatement, compensation, memorandums of understanding, arrear wages, etc.) and 66 are undergoing investigation; and (v) of 51 criminal cases referred to labour courts (39 in the previous report), 48 are pending and three were settled – two in favour of the employer and one in favour of the workers. The Committee also notes the details provided by the Government on the type of anti-union practices referred to in the complaints and the remedies applied, as well as information on training and capacity-building activities provided to the concerned stakeholders and workers, including through the workers’ resource centre. Taking due note of the information provided, the Committee recalls that the existence of legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not enough if they are not accompanied by effective and rapid procedures to ensure their application in practice (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 190). The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed statistics on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination received by the relevant authorities and their follow-up, including time taken to resolve the disputes, remedies imposed, the number of complaints settled amicably compared to those referred to labour courts, the results of judicial proceedings and the sanctions ultimately imposed following full proceedings. The Committee encourages the Government to continue to provide the necessary training to labour officials on dealing with anti-union and unfair labour practices complaints with a view to ensuring their efficient and credible handling and to inform about the functioning in practice of the workers’ resource centre. While noting the technical challenges encountered, the Committee expects the online database on anti-union complaints to be fully operational in the near future so as to ensure transparency of the process and at the same time ensuring protection of personal data of the workers concerned.

The Committee  regrets  that despite its previous request to increase the penalties envisaged for unfair labour practices and acts of anti-union discrimination by employers, the applicable fines remained unchanged and, as a result, are not sufficiently dissuasive (a fine of maximum 10,000 Bangladeshi taka (BDT) which equals US$120 – section 291(1) of the BLA). The Committee further notes that the penalty of imprisonment has been reduced through the 2018 BLA amendment from two years to one year (section 291(1) of the BLA). While noting that the BLA has been recently amended, in order to ensure that acts of anti-union discrimination give rise to a just reparation and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures, after consultation with the social partners, to increase the amount of the fine imposable for acts of anti-union discrimination.

Helpline for submission of labour-related complaints. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide detailed updates on the functioning of the helpline for submission of labour-related complaints targeting the ready-made garment (RMG) sector in the Ashulia area and to clarify the status of the 1,567 complaints mentioned that had not been settled. The Committee notes the detailed information provided on the functioning of the helpline: complaints are received through the helpline by a tele consultant group and are then transferred to district offices of the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE) and investigated by a labour inspector. Mitigation of the complaints is done in three ways: (1) through tripartite meetings (section 124A of the BLA); (2) communication of the complaint to the factory management, who then resolves the issue; or (3) legal action by the DIFE through filing of cases to labour courts. The Government informs that the DIFE received a total of 5,494 complaints between March 2015 and August 2020, of which 5,407 were resolved and 87 complaints are pending, and that the time for resolving the complaints depends on the nature and complexity of the issue. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication in its supplementary report that another labour helpline has been introduced by the DIFE to receive complaints from workers and to ensure proper redress, and that this helpline will assist workers and employers in resolving issues regarding wages, retrenchments, gender-based violence and health and safety issues in accordance with the BLA. There are also proposals to further increase the manpower of the DIFE with additional 1,698 positions, including senior positions.  Taking due note of the information, the Committee requests the Government to clarify the outcome of the 5,407 complaints that have been resolved, to indicate the number or the percentage of complaints specifically related to anti-union practices, and to provide information on whether any steps are taken to ensure anonymity of the complainants so as to prevent reprisals against helpline users. Observing that the RMG helpline has been in service since 2015 and that a new helpline aimed at resolving labour-related issues has been created, the Committee encourages the Government to continue to formally expand these procedures to other geographical areas and industrial sectors, in line with its previously expressed commitment. 

Allegations of anti-union discrimination following the 2016 Ashulia incident and the 2018-2019 minimum wage protests. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that any pending proceedings in relation to the Ashulia incident are concluded without delay, that all workers dismissed for anti-union reasons who wish to return to work are reinstated, and expressed its expectation that measures would be taken to prevent repeated and institutionalized acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that, in relation to the Ashulia incident, all those in custody were immediately released, no worker was imprisoned and after primary investigation, out of ten cases, eight were concluded without framing any charge against any worker and two cases are now pending. The Committee observes that the Committee on Freedom of Association had noted the Government’s indication that no worker had been removed for participation in activities related to the Ashulia strike but that a number of workers resigned upon receipt of their due payments and that no contradictory or additional information in this regard has been received from the complainants (see 388th Report, March 2019, Case No. 3263, paragraph 202). With regard to the 2018-2019 minimum wage protests, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that while the social partners provided a list of 12,436 workers dismissed from 104 factories, after primary verification by the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) and the Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BKMEA), it was found that 94 factories were involved and 4,489 workers were terminated from 41 factories. The Government clarifies that all terminated workers received benefits according to the existing provisions of the BLA, two factories were found closed, memorandums of understanding were signed between workers’ federations and the employer in ten factories and collection of information from 12 factories is in progress. The Committee notes that the Committee on Freedom of Association also observed in relation to the January 2019 demonstrations that several memoranda of understanding had been signed between workers and employers in a number of enterprises providing for the payment of wages and other legal dues to dismissed or suspended workers (see 392nd Report, October 2020, Case No. 3263, paragraph 284). Noting with concern the massive dismissals of workers following their participation in the 2018-2019 minimum wage protests, the Committee observes that investigations into these allegations do not seem to be conducted by an independent entity but by employers’ organizations concerned. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to clarify its involvement in the ongoing investigations into the massive dismissals of workers following the 2018-2019 minimum wage protests and to provide information on whether an investigation, by an independent entity, has taken place in this regard. The Committee firmly expects that any future investigations into concrete allegations of anti-union discrimination will be done in full independence and impartiality and that the Government will continue to take all necessary measures to prevent repeated and institutionalized acts of anti-union discrimination. Further recalling that in case of dismissal by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, reinstatement should be included among the range of measures that can be taken to remedy such a situation and that, if compensation or fines are imposed, these should be sufficiently dissuasive, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the concrete remedies applied in all cases of termination of workers in the above incidents for which it has been found that they had occurred for anti-union reasons.

Case concerning dismissed workers in the mining sector. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the outcome of the judicial proceedings concerning dismissed workers in the mining sector who were charged with illegal activities (case No. 345/2011) once the judgment of the District Sessions Court, Dinajpur has been rendered. Noting the Government’s statement that no hearing has yet been held but observing that the case has been pending for several years, the Committee emphasizes the importance of ensuring expeditious examination of allegations of anti-union discrimination so as to ensure adequate protection against such acts in practice.  The Committee expects the case to be completed rapidly and requests the Government to provide information on its outcome once the judgment of the District Sessions Court, Dinajpur has been rendered.

Protection of workers in export-processing zones (EPZs) against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide clarification on several aspects of inspection and hearings conducted by the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA or Zone Authority) and on the application of the RMG helpline to EPZ workers. It requested the Government to establish an online database for anti-union discrimination complaints specific to the EPZs and to continue to provide statistics on anti-union discrimination complaints. The Committee notes the Government’s clarification that the RMG helpline established by the DIFE is not applicable to EPZ factories but that there is an individual helpline and independent help desk in eight EPZs where labour-related complaints can be easily submitted, and that the establishment of an online database for workers’ complaints is in process. It also notes the detailed information provided on the inspection and monitoring of the working conditions, complaints and grievances of workers by BEPZA, which includes: spontaneous visits to enterprises; possibility to submit anonymous complaints to counsellor-cum-inspectors, industrial relation officers, general manager of the concerned zone or BEPZA executive office which are investigated neutrally; an enquiry option on the BEPZA official website where anyone can drop a message, query or complaint; a complaint box in each EPZ office where workers can drop a complaint and get assistance from the Zone Authority; and the possibility of posting updates and getting information on the social media website.  Taking due note of the detailed information provided but observing that no statistics were submitted in this regard, the Committee requests the Government once again to provide detailed statistics on the number of anti-union discrimination complaints brought to the competent authorities, their follow-up and the remedies and sanctions imposed. 

The Committee also previously requested the Government to bring the EPZs within the purview of the Ministry of Labour and the Labour Inspectorate. The Committee notes with  interest  the Government’s indication that the inspection and administration system of EPZs have been brought in line with the BLA (Chapter XIV of the ELA), that section 168 of the ELA allows the Chief Inspector and other inspectors appointed under the BLA to undertake inspections of EPZs and that several joint inspections have already taken place. The Committee refers to its more detailed comments in this regard made under Conventions Nos 81 and 87.

While noting the Government’s indication that radical changes have been made to bring the ELA in line with the BLA and improve protection against anti-union discrimination, the Committee observes that, in terms of ensuring adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, there is a further need to continue to review the law to ensure its conformity with the Convention regarding the following matters: specific categories of workers continue to be excluded from the law (workers in supervisory and managerial positions – sections 2(48)) or from Chapter IX dealing with workers’ welfare associations (WWAs), and thus from protection against anti-union discrimination (members of the watch and ward or security staff, drivers, confidential assistants, cipher assistants, casual workers, workers employed by kitchen or food preparation contractors and workers employed in clerical posts (section 93), as well as workers in managerial positions (section 115(2)); broad power of the Executive Chairperson to rule on the legitimacy of a transfer or termination of a WWA representative (section 121(3)–(4)); broad exception to protection against anti-union discrimination (section 121(2) paragraph 2); lack of specific measures to remedy acts of anti-union discrimination except in case of WWA officials covered by section 121; insufficiently dissuasive fines for unfair labour practices – a maximum of US$600 (section 151(1)) and for anti-union discrimination during an industrial dispute – a maximum of US$120 (section 157).The Committee further notes the Government’s indication in its supplementary report that a committee will be formed to address the issue of any amendments to the ELA and that the necessary steps will be taken pursuant to its recommendations. The Government also informs that the Zone Authority is open to valuable suggestions, advice and technical assistance from the ILO so as to further improve its training programmes and to uplift workers’ rights in the EPZs. Taking due note of the fact that the ELA has been adopted in February 2019 but observing that the above provisions need to be further amended to ensure their conformity with the Convention, the Committee expects that the discussion on the revision of the ELA will continue in the near future, in consultation with the social partners, to address the issues highlighted above in a meaningful manner so as to ensure that all workers covered by the Convention are adequately protected against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee trusts that the Government will be able to report progress in this regard.

Finally, the Committee observes with concern the allegations communicated by the ITUC referring to widespread anti-union practices in the country and illustrated by the dismissal of 36 workers in two EPZ factories in April 2019 following unsuccessful attempts at collective bargaining.  The Committee requests the Government to provide its reply to these allegations.

Articles 2 and 3. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference in the BLA and the ELA. The Committee previously emphasized the importance of providing for explicit provisions in the BLA granting full protection against acts of interference. While noting the Government’s emphasis on the 2018 BLA amendments and noting that sections 195(1)(g) and 202(13) prohibit employer’s interference in the conduct of elections for a collective bargaining agent and Rule 187(2) of the Bangladesh Labour Rules (BLR) prohibits interference in elections of workers’ representatives to participation committees, the Committee observes that these provisions do not cover all acts of interference prohibited under Article 2 of the Convention, such as acts designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of the employer, to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the objective of placing them under the control of an employer or an employers’ organization, to exercise pressure in favour or against any workers’ organization, etc. Similarly, while noting that the ELA contains certain provisions prohibiting acts of interference (sections 115(1)(f) and 116(3)), the Committee observes that they do not cover all acts of interference prohibited under Article 2 of the Convention.  The Committee therefore requests the Government to take all necessary measures to broaden the current scope of protection against acts of interference in the BLA and the ELA, so as to ensure that workers’ and employers’ organizations are effectively protected against all acts of interference both in law and in practice. The Committee trusts that, in the meantime, efforts will be made to ensure that, in practice, workers’ and employers’ organizations will be protected from any acts of interference against each other.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee previously requested the Government to inform about the application in practice of section 202A(1) of the BLA providing for assistance from specialists in the context of collective bargaining. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that there is currently no uniform procedure for the use of experts in collective bargaining but that the issue may be considered during the revision of the BLR, that out of nine collective bargaining agreements concluded at the national level and seven at the sectoral level between 2017 and 2019, support of experts was used in five cases and that the assistance of experts facilitates decision-making on collective agreements with confidence.

The Committee also requested the Government to ensure that Rule 4 of the BLR giving the Inspector General total discretion to shape the outcome of service rules and determine their conformity with the law was not used to limit collective bargaining and to provide information on the application in practice of Rule 202, which prohibits certain trade union activities in a way that could impinge on the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining. In relation to Rule 4, the Government informs that the management of factories prepares service rules together with trade unions and in case of any objection, tripartite meetings are arranged to address the objection and only then does the DIFE verify the conformity of the service rules with the law, thus not hampering collective bargaining. It also states that amendment of Rule 202 may be discussed in the next revision of the BLR.  The Committee encourages the Government to consider amending Rule 202, in consultation with the social partners, during the next revision of the BLR in order to ensure it does not unduly impinge on the right to collective bargaining.

Higher-level collective bargaining. The Committee previously requested the Government to consider amending sections 202 and 203 of the BLA to clearly provide a legal basis for collective bargaining at the industry, sector and national levels and to continue to provide statistics on the number of higher-level collective agreements concluded. While noting the amendments made to section 202 of the BLA, the Committee observes that these do not address its previous concerns about the lack of a legal basis for higher-level collective bargaining. The Committee notes the statistics provided by the Government on the number of collective agreements concluded, the number of workers covered and the sectors to which they relate but observes that these agreements appear to have been concluded at the level of the enterprise and not at sectoral or national levels. It recalls in this regard the need to ensure that collective bargaining is possible at all levels, both at the national level, and at enterprise level; it must also be possible for federations and confederations (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 222). In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to consider, in consultation with the social partners, to further revise sections 202 and 203 of the BLA so as to clearly provide a legal basis for collective bargaining at the industry, sector and national levels. Observing that the information provided by the Government lacks certain elements previously called for, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of higher-level collective agreements concluded and in force (at the sectoral and national levels), the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered by these agreements, as well as on any additional measures undertaken to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention.

Collective bargaining in the agricultural sector. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to the Committee’s comments made under the Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (No. 11), in particular that, through bipartite or tripartite negotiations, trade unions and associations of agricultural workers conclude agreements with employers every three years concerning terms and conditions of work, welfare facilities, insurance, safety, security and other matters.  The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether statistics are available on the number of collective agreements concluded in the agricultural sector, the type of activity concerned and the number of workers covered, and if so, to provide details in this regard. It also requests the Government to clarify the functioning in practice of tripartite negotiations in this sector.

Determination of collective bargaining agents. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide clarification on the exact requirements for a trade union to become a collective bargaining agent. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that there has not yet been a situation where, among several existing unions, no union received the required percentage of votes (one third of the total number of workers employed in the establishment concerned) and recalls that the determination of the threshold of representativeness to designate an exclusive agent for the purpose of negotiating collective agreements which are destined to be applied to all workers in a sector or establishment is compatible with the Convention insofar as the required conditions do not constitute an obstacle to the promotion of free and voluntary collective bargaining in practice. The Committee wishes to clarify that it is not requesting the Government to remove the one third majority requirement for the acquisition of the exclusive bargaining agent status but recalls that if no union in a specific negotiating unit meets the required threshold of representativeness to be able to negotiate on behalf of all workers, the existing unions should be able to negotiate, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members.  The Committee therefore requests the Government to clarify whether, in case where no union reaches the required threshold to be recognized as the exclusive collective bargaining agent under section 202 of the BLA, the existing unions are given the possibility, jointly or separately, to bargain collectively, at least on behalf of their own members.

Promotion of collective bargaining in the EPZs. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on any cases where the BEPZA Executive Chairperson rejected the legitimacy of a WWA and its capacity to act as a collective bargaining agent, to take the necessary measures to ensure that the determination of collective bargaining agents in EPZs is the prerogative of an independent body and to continue to provide statistics on the number of collective bargaining agreements concluded. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that a WWA registered under the Act in an industrial unit is the collective bargaining agent for that industrial unit (section 119 of the ELA), that there has been no case of rejection of the legitimacy of a WWA and its capacity to act as a collective bargaining agent so far under section 180(c) and that this provision is a safeguard of legitimate WWAs and collective bargaining agents. Taking due note of the explanation, the Committee recalls, however, that the determination of bargaining agents should be carried out by a body offering every guarantee of independence and objectivity. The Government further informs that all 237 elected and registered WWAs are actively performing their activities with full freedom and that during the last five years they had submitted 521 charters of demands, all of which had been negotiated successfully and collective bargaining agreements or memorandums of understanding had been signed.  Welcoming the Government’s commitment to take the necessary measures to maintain yearly statistics in this regard, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of collective bargaining agreements concluded and in force in the EPZs, the sectors concerned and the number of workers covered by these agreements, , along with some sample agreements, as well as on any additional measures undertaken to promote the full development and utilization of collective bargaining under the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to endeavour to further amend section 180 of the ELA, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that the determination of collective bargaining agents in EPZs is the prerogative of an independent body, such as the Department of Labour. The Committee also requests the Government to clarify the implications in practice of section 117(2) which does not allow any proceedings before a civil court for the purpose of enforcing or recovering damages for breach of any agreement.

Compulsory arbitration in the BLA and the ELA. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication, in response to its previous request, that the proposed amendment to section 210(10) of the BLA that would enable a conciliator to refer an industrial dispute to an arbitrator even if the parties do not agree was finally not included in the amended BLA. The Committee observes, however, that the ELA allows for unilateral referral of a dispute to the EPZ Labour Court which could result in compulsory arbitration (sections 131(3)–(5) and 132 read in conjunction with section 144(1)). Recalling that compulsory arbitration is only acceptable in relation to public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6 of the Convention), or in essential services in the strict sense of the term or in cases of acute national crisis, the Committee expects that, during the next revision of ELA, the Government will address this issue in a meaningful manner, in consultation with the social partners.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee previously requested the Government to clarify what specific categories of workers in the public sector can bargain collectively, to indicate the criteria based on which this right is granted and to provide examples of collective agreements concluded in the public sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are 408 public sector trade unions, including in various sector corporations, city corporations and municipalities, port authorities, secondary and higher secondary education boards, water development boards, energy sectors, various banks and financial institutions, power sectors, jute mills and sugar mills.  Observing that the Government’s reply refers to the right to form trade unions without indicating whether, in the various sectors mentioned, these organizations have the right to undertake collective bargaining, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether this is indeed the case, and if so, to provide examples of collective bargaining agreements concluded in the public sector.

The Committee further observes the Government’s statement that only staff of autonomous organizations have the right to form trade unions and not the officers, and that neither officers nor staff of public sector organizations other than public autonomous organizations have the right to form trade unions. The Committee recalls in this regard that, in accordance with Article 6, only public servants engaged in the administration of the State may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and that a distinction must thus be drawn between, on the one hand, this type of public servants and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 172). The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide a list of public sector services or entities where collective bargaining is not allowed. For those autonomous public sector organizations where collective bargaining is permitted, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the criteria used to distinguish between staff and officers for the purposes of collective bargaining.

Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its supplementary report that the situation of the RMG sector, which is dependent on export, is critical as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government also informs that in order to uphold labour rights, the Ministry of Labour and Employment elaborated a roadmap in consultation with the tripartite partners but that due to the current pandemic, many of its initiatives destined to be implemented are now delayed or slowed down, including the labour reform. While taking due note of the impact of the current COVID-19 pandemic on the economy of the country, in particular in the RMG sector, as well as on the Government's efforts to pursue the labour reform, the Committee highlights the significant added-value of collective bargaining as a means of achieving balanced and sustainable solutions in times of crisis. The Committee expresses its firm hope that, as soon as feasible, significant progress will be made in the very near future to bring both the legislation and practice into conformity with the Convention and reminds the Government that it can avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office should it so desire in order to assist the national tripartite dialogue in determining further areas for progress.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2019 referring to matters addressed in this comment.

The Committee notes that a complaint under article 26 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-compliance by Bangladesh with this Convention, as well as the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), and the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), submitted by several Workers’ delegates to the 2019 International Labour Conference, was declared receivable and is pending before the Governing Body.

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

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide detailed statistics on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination received by the relevant authorities and their follow-up and to take the necessary measures, after consultation with the social partners, to increase the penalties envisaged for unfair labour practices and acts of anti-union discrimination, and to indicate the outcome of 39 mentioned complaints that gave rise to criminal cases. It also expressed its expectation that the measures taken by the Government would contribute to an expedient, efficient and transparent handling of anti-union discrimination complaints. The Committee notes with interest the addition of section 196(A) in the BLA explicitly prohibiting anti-union activities by the employer and providing for the establishment of standard operating procedures (SOPs) for investigating such acts. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that in case of alleged anti-union activities at enterprise level, it generally intervenes through tripartite consultations, including by setting up dedicated committees for rapid and effective remedial measures, which proved effective in the national industrial relations context, and that in case of serious allegations, there is scope for on-site investigation and referral to the labour courts. It also notes the details provided by the Government on the procedure established under the SOPs to follow up complaints received, which consists of seven stages (written complaint, verification, communication with the employer, investigation, resolution, record with recommendations and referral to labour courts). The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that: (i) following the adoption of the SOPs on anti-union discrimination, the handling of complaints has become easier and more transparent and the SOPs are referred to in the 2018 BLA amendment (sections 195(2), 196(4) and 196(A); (ii) the upgrade of the Directorate of Labour (DOL) to a Department of Labour has been completed, resulting in an increase of manpower from 712 to 921, a considerable increase in the DOL budget, and the creation of two additional divisional labour offices; (iii) the software for the publicly available online database on anti-union discrimination is currently being upgraded, but once completed, the database will include information on, among others, trade union related court cases, conciliation, election of collective bargaining agents, anti-union discrimination and information on participation committees; (iv) from 2013 to July 2019, 257 complaints regarding anti-union discrimination and unfair labour practices were submitted to the labour office, of which 203 were addressed (51 cases referred to labour courts and 152 disposed of amicably through reinstatement, compensation, memorandums of understanding, arrear wages, etc.) and 54 are undergoing investigation; and (v) of 51 criminal cases referred to labour courts (39 in the previous report), 48 are pending and three were settled – two in favour of the employer and one in favour of the workers. The Committee also notes the details provided by the Government on the type of anti-union practices referred to in the complaints and the remedies applied, as well as information on training and capacity-building activities provided to the concerned stakeholders and workers, including through the workers’ resource centre. Taking due note of the information provided, the Committee recalls that the existence of legal provisions prohibiting acts of anti-union discrimination is not enough if they are not accompanied by effective and rapid procedures to ensure their application in practice (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 190). The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed statistics on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination received by the relevant authorities and their follow-up, including time taken to resolve the disputes, remedies imposed, the number of complaints settled amicably compared to those referred to labour courts, the results of judicial proceedings and the sanctions ultimately imposed following full proceedings. The Committee encourages the Government to continue to provide the necessary training to labour officials on dealing with anti-union and unfair labour practices complaints with a view to ensuring their efficient and credible handling and to inform about the functioning in practice of the workers’ resource centre. While noting the technical challenges encountered, the Committee expects the online database on anti-union complaints to be fully operational in the near future so as to ensure transparency of the process and at the same time ensuring protection of personal data of the workers concerned.

The Committee regrets that despite its previous request to increase the penalties envisaged for unfair labour practices and acts of anti-union discrimination by employers, the applicable fines remained unchanged and, as a result, are not sufficiently dissuasive (a fine of maximum 10,000 Bangladeshi taka (BDT) which equals US$120 – section 291(1) of the BLA). The Committee further notes that the penalty of imprisonment has been reduced through the 2018 BLA amendment from two years to one year (section 291(1) of the BLA). While noting that the BLA has been recently amended, in order to ensure that acts of anti-union discrimination give rise to a just reparation and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures, after consultation with the social partners, to increase the amount of the fine imposable for acts of anti-union discrimination.

Helpline for submission of labour-related complaints. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide detailed updates on the functioning of the helpline for submission of labour-related complaints targeting the ready-made garment (RMG) sector in the Ashulia area and to clarify the status of the 1,567 complaints mentioned that had not been settled. The Committee notes the detailed information provided on the functioning of the helpline: complaints are received through the helpline by a tele consultant group and are then transferred to district offices of the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE) and investigated by a labour inspector. Mitigation of the complaints is done in three ways: (1) through tripartite meetings (section 124A of the BLA); (2) communication of the complaint to the factory management, who then resolves the issue; or (3) legal action by the DIFE through filing of cases to labour courts. The Government informs that the DIFE received a total of 3,559 complaints between March 2015 and August 2019, of which 3,529 were resolved and 30 complaints are pending, and that the time for resolving the complaints depends on the nature and complexity of the issue. Taking due note of the information, the Committee requests the Government to clarify the outcome of the 3,529 complaints that have been resolved, to indicate the number or the percentage of complaints specifically related to anti-union practices, and to provide information on whether any steps are taken to ensure anonymity of the complainants so as to prevent reprisals against helpline users. Observing that the helpline has been in service since 2015, the Committee encourages the Government to formally expand the helpline to other geographical areas and industrial sectors, in line with its previously expressed commitment.

Allegations of anti-union discrimination following the 2016 Ashulia incident and the 2018 minimum wage protests. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to ensure that any pending proceedings in relation to the Ashulia incident are concluded without delay, that all workers dismissed for anti-union reasons who wish to return to work are reinstated, and expressed its expectation that measures would be taken to prevent repeated and institutionalized acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that, in relation to the Ashulia incident, all those in custody were immediately released, no worker was imprisoned and after primary investigation, all cases were concluded without framing any charge against any worker and observes that the Committee on Freedom of Association had noted the Government’s indication that no worker had been removed for participation in activities related to the Ashulia strike but that a number of workers resigned upon receipt of their due payments (see 388th Report, March 2019, Case No. 3263, paragraph 202). With regard to the 2018 minimum wage protests, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that while the social partners provided a list of 12,436 workers dismissed from 104 factories, after primary verification by the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) and the Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BKMEA), it was found that 94 factories were involved and 4,489 workers were terminated from 41 factories. The Government clarifies that all terminated workers received benefits according to the existing provisions of the BLA, two factories were found closed, memorandums of understanding were signed between workers’ federations and the employer in ten factories and collection of information from 12 factories is in progress. Noting with concern the massive dismissals of workers following their participation in the 2018 minimum wage protests, the Committee observes that investigations into these allegations do not seem to be conducted by an independent entity but by employers’ organizations concerned. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to clarify its involvement in the ongoing investigations into the massive dismissals of workers following the 2018 minimum wage protests and to provide information on whether an investigation, by an independent entity, has taken place in this regard. The Committee firmly expects that any future investigations into concrete allegations of anti-union discrimination will be done in full independence and impartiality and that the Government will continue to take all necessary measures to prevent repeated and institutionalized acts of anti-union discrimination. Further recalling that in case of dismissal by reason of trade union membership or legitimate trade union activities, reinstatement should be included among the range of measures that can be taken to remedy such a situation and that, if compensation or fines are imposed, these should be sufficiently dissuasive, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the concrete remedies applied in all cases of termination of workers in the above incidents for which it has been found that they had occurred for anti-union reasons.

Case concerning dismissed workers in the mining sector. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the outcome of the judicial proceedings concerning dismissed workers in the mining sector who were charged with illegal activities (case No. 345/2011) once the judgment of the District Sessions Court, Dinajpur has been rendered. Noting the Government’s statement that no hearing has yet been held but observing that the case has been pending for several years, the Committee emphasizes the importance of ensuring expeditious examination of allegations of anti-union discrimination so as to ensure adequate protection against such acts in practice. The Committee expects the case to be completed rapidly and requests the Government to provide information on its outcome once the judgment of the District Sessions Court, Dinajpur has been rendered.

Protection of workers in export-processing zones (EPZs) against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide clarification on several aspects of inspection and hearings conducted by the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA or Zone Authority) and on the application of the RMG helpline to EPZ workers. It requested the Government to establish an online database for anti-union discrimination complaints specific to the EPZs and to continue to provide statistics on anti-union discrimination complaints. The Committee notes the Government’s clarification that the RMG helpline established by the DIFE is not applicable to EPZ factories but that there is an individual helpline and independent help desk in eight EPZs where labour-related complaints can be easily submitted, and that the establishment of an online database for workers’ complaints is in process. It also notes the detailed information provided on the inspection and monitoring of the working conditions, complaints and grievances of workers by BEPZA, which includes: spontaneous visits to enterprises; possibility to submit anonymous complaints to counsellor-cum-inspectors, industrial relation officers, general manager of the concerned zone or BEPZA executive office which are investigated neutrally; an enquiry option on the BEPZA official website where anyone can drop a message, query or complaint; a complaint box in each EPZ office where workers can drop a complaint and get assistance from the Zone Authority; and the possibility of posting updates and getting information on the social media website. Taking due note of the detailed information provided but observing that no statistics were submitted in this regard, the Committee requests the Government once again to provide detailed statistics on the number of anti-union discrimination complaints brought to the competent authorities, their follow-up and the remedies and sanctions imposed.

The Committee also previously requested the Government to bring the EPZs within the purview of the Ministry of Labour and the Labour Inspectorate. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the inspection and administration system of EPZs have been brought in line with the BLA (Chapter XIV of the ELA), that section 168 of the ELA allows the Chief Inspector and other inspectors appointed under the BLA to undertake inspections of EPZs and that several joint inspections have already taken place. The Committee refers to its more detailed comments in this regard made under Conventions Nos 81 and 87.

While noting the Government’s indication that radical changes have been made to bring the ELA in line with the BLA and improve protection against anti-union discrimination, the Committee observes that, in terms of ensuring adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, there is a further need to continue to review the law to ensure its conformity with the Convention regarding the following matters: specific categories of workers continue to be excluded from the law (workers in supervisory and managerial positions – sections 2(48)) or from Chapter IX dealing with workers’ welfare associations (WWAs), and thus from protection against anti-union discrimination (members of the watch and ward or security staff, drivers, confidential assistants, cipher assistants, casual workers, workers employed by kitchen or food preparation contractors and workers employed in clerical posts (section 93), as well as workers in managerial positions (section 115(2)); broad power of the Executive Chairperson to rule on the legitimacy of a transfer or termination of a WWA representative (section 121(3)-(4)); broad exception to protection against anti-union discrimination (section 121(2) paragraph 2); lack of specific measures to remedy acts of anti-union discrimination except in case of WWA officials covered by section 121; insufficiently dissuasive fines for unfair labour practices – a maximum of US$600 (section 151(1)) and for anti-union discrimination during an industrial dispute – a maximum of US$120 (section 157). Taking due note of the fact that the ELA has been adopted in February 2019 but observing that the above provisions need to be further amended to ensure their conformity with the Convention, the Committee expects that the discussion on the revision of the ELA will continue in the near future, in consultation with the social partners, to address the issues highlighted above in a meaningful manner so as to ensure that all workers covered by the Convention are adequately protected against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee trusts that the Government will be able to report progress in this regard.

Finally, the Committee observes with concern the allegations communicated by the ITUC referring to widespread anti-union practices in the country and illustrated by the dismissal of 36 workers in two EPZ factories in April 2019 following unsuccessful attempts at collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide its reply to these allegations.

Articles 2 and 3. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference in the BLA and the ELA. The Committee previously emphasized the importance of providing for explicit provisions in the BLA granting full protection against acts of interference. While noting the Government’s emphasis on the 2018 BLA amendments and noting that sections 195(1)(g) and 202(13) prohibit employer’s interference in the conduct of elections for a collective bargaining agent and Rule 187(2) of the Bangladesh Labour Rules (BLR) prohibits interference in elections of workers’ representatives to participation committees, the Committee observes that these provisions do not cover all acts of interference prohibited under Article 2 of the Convention, such as acts designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of the employer, to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the objective of placing them under the control of an employer or an employers’ organization, to exercise pressure in favour or against any workers’ organization, etc. Similarly, while noting that the ELA contains certain provisions prohibiting acts of interference (sections 115(1)(f) and 116(3)), the Committee observes that they do not cover all acts of interference prohibited under Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take all necessary measures to broaden the current scope of protection against acts of interference in the BLA and the ELA, so as to ensure that workers’ and employers’ organizations are effectively protected against all acts of interference both in law and in practice. The Committee trusts that, in the meantime, efforts will be made to ensure that, in practice, workers’ and employers’ organizations will be protected from any acts of interference against each other.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee previously requested the Government to inform about the application in practice of section 202A(1) of the BLA providing for assistance from specialists in the context of collective bargaining. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that there is currently no uniform procedure for the use of experts in collective bargaining but that the issue may be considered during the revision of the BLR, that out of nine collective bargaining agreements concluded at the national level and seven at the sectoral level between 2017 and 2019, support of experts was used in five cases and that the assistance of experts facilitates decision-making on collective agreements with confidence.

The Committee also requested the Government to ensure that Rule 4 of the BLR giving the Inspector General total discretion to shape the outcome of service rules and determine their conformity with the law was not used to limit collective bargaining and to provide information on the application in practice of Rule 202, which prohibits certain trade union activities in a way that could impinge on the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining. In relation to Rule 4, the Government informs that the management of factories prepares service rules together with trade unions and in case of any objection, tripartite meetings are arranged to address the objection and only then does the DIFE verify the conformity of the service rules with the law, thus not hampering collective bargaining. It also states that amendment of Rule 202 may be discussed in the next revision of the BLR. The Committee encourages the Government to consider amending Rule 202, in consultation with the social partners, during the next revision of the BLR in order to ensure it does not unduly impinge on the right to collective bargaining.

Higher-level collective bargaining. The Committee previously requested the Government to consider amending sections 202 and 203 of the BLA to clearly provide a legal basis for collective bargaining at the industry, sector and national levels and to continue to provide statistics on the number of higher-level collective agreements concluded. While noting the amendments made to section 202 of the BLA, the Committee observes that these do not address its previous concerns about the lack of a legal basis for higher-level collective bargaining. The Committee notes the statistics provided by the Government on the number of collective agreements concluded, the number of workers covered and the sectors to which they relate but observes that these agreements appear to have been concluded at the level of the enterprise and not at sectoral or national levels. It recalls in this regard the need to ensure that collective bargaining is possible at all levels, both at the national level, and at enterprise level; it must also be possible for federations and confederations (see the 2012 General Survey, paragraph 222). In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to consider, in consultation with the social partners, to further revise sections 202 and 203 of the BLA so as to clearly provide a legal basis for collective bargaining at the industry, sector and national levels. Observing that the information provided by the Government lacks certain elements previously called for, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of higher-level collective agreements concluded (at the sectoral and national levels), the areas of industry to which they apply and the number of workers covered.

Collective bargaining in the agricultural sector. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to the Committee’s comments made under the Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921 (No. 11), in particular that, through bipartite or tripartite negotiations, trade unions and associations of agricultural workers conclude agreements with employers every three years concerning terms and conditions of work, welfare facilities, insurance, safety, security and other matters. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether statistics are available on the number of collective agreements concluded in the agricultural sector, the type of activity concerned and the number of workers covered, and if so, to provide details in this regard. It also requests the Government to clarify the functioning in practice of tripartite negotiations in this sector.

Determination of collective bargaining agents. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide clarification on the exact requirements for a trade union to become a collective bargaining agent. The Committee notes the Government’s explanation that there has not yet been a situation where, among several existing unions, no union received the required percentage of votes (one third of the total number of workers employed in the establishment concerned) and recalls that the determination of the threshold of representativeness to designate an exclusive agent for the purpose of negotiating collective agreements which are destined to be applied to all workers in a sector or establishment is compatible with the Convention insofar as the required conditions do not constitute an obstacle to the promotion of free and voluntary collective bargaining in practice. The Committee wishes to clarify that it is not requesting the Government to remove the one third majority requirement for the acquisition of the exclusive bargaining agent status but recalls that if no union in a specific negotiating unit meets the required threshold of representativeness to be able to negotiate on behalf of all workers, the existing unions should be able to negotiate, jointly or separately, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee therefore requests the Government to clarify whether, in case where no union reaches the required threshold to be recognized as the exclusive collective bargaining agent under section 202 of the BLA, the existing unions are given the possibility, jointly or separately, to bargain collectively, at least on behalf of their own members.

Promotion of collective bargaining in the EPZs. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on any cases where the BEPZA Executive Chairperson rejected the legitimacy of a WWA and its capacity to act as a collective bargaining agent, to take the necessary measures to ensure that the determination of collective bargaining agents in EPZs is the prerogative of an independent body and to continue to provide statistics on the number of collective bargaining agreements concluded. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that a WWA registered under the Act in an industrial unit is the collective bargaining agent for that industrial unit (section 119) of the ELA, that there has been no case of rejection of the legitimacy of a WWA and its capacity to act as a collective bargaining agent so far under section 180(c) and that this provision is a safeguard of legitimate WWAs and collective bargaining agents. Taking due note of the explanation, the Committee recalls, however, that the determination of bargaining agents should be carried out by a body offering every guarantee of independence and objectivity. The Government further informs that all 237 elected and registered WWAs are actively performing their activities with full freedom and that during the last five years they had submitted 521 charters of demands, all of which had been negotiated successfully and collective bargaining agreements or memorandums of understanding had been signed. Welcoming the Government’s commitment to take the necessary measures to maintain yearly statistics in this regard, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of collective bargaining agreements concluded in the EPZs, the sectors and the number of workers covered, along with some sample agreements. The Committee requests the Government to endeavour to further amend section 180 of the ELA, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that the determination of collective bargaining agents in EPZs is the prerogative of an independent body, such as the Department of Labour. The Committee also requests the Government to clarify the implications in practice of section 117(2) which does not allow any proceedings before a civil court for the purpose of enforcing or recovering damages for breach of any agreement.

Compulsory arbitration in the BLA and the ELA. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication, in reponse to its previous request, that the proposed amendment to section 210(10) of the BLA that would enable a conciliator to refer an industrial dispute to an arbitrator even if the parties do not agree was finally not included in the amended BLA. The Committee observes, however, that the ELA allows for unilateral referral of a dispute to the EPZ Labour Court which could result in compulsory arbitration (sections 131(3)–(5) and 132 read in conjunction with section 144(1)). Recalling that compulsory arbitration is only acceptable in relation to public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6 of the Convention), or in essential services in the strict sense of the term or in cases of acute national crisis, the Committee expects that, during the next revision of ELA, the Government will address this issue in a meaningful manner, in consultation with the social partners.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining in the public sector. The Committee previously requested the Government to clarify what specific categories of workers in the public sector can bargain collectively, to indicate the criteria based on which this right is granted and to provide examples of collective agreements concluded in the public sector. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there are 408 public sector trade unions, including in various sector corporations, city corporations and municipalities, port authorities, secondary and higher secondary education boards, water development boards, energy sectors, various banks and financial institutions, power sectors, jute mills and sugar mills. Observing that the Government’s reply refers to the right to form trade unions without indicating whether, in the various sectors mentioned, these organizations have the right to undertake collective bargaining, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether this is indeed the case, and if so, to provide examples of collective bargaining agreements concluded in the public sector.

The Committee further observes the Government’s statement that only staff of autonomous organizations have the right to form trade unions and not the officers, and that neither officers nor staff of public sector organizations other than public autonomous organizations have the right to form trade unions. The Committee recalls in this regard that, in accordance with Article 6, only public servants engaged in the administration of the State (civil servants in Government ministries and other comparable bodies, and ancillary staff) may be excluded from the scope of the Convention and that a distinction must thus be drawn between, on the one hand, this type of public servants and, on the other hand, all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions, who should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide a list of public sector services or entities where collective bargaining is not allowed. For those autonomous public sector organizations where collective bargaining is permitted, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the criteria used to distinguish between staff and officers for the purposes of collective bargaining.

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

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2017 referring to matters addressed below and the Government’s reply thereto. The Committee also notes the Government’s comments on the 2015 and 2016 ITUC observations submitted under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), as well as the information provided to the 2017 Conference Committee on the Application of Standards, when examining the individual case of Bangladesh under Convention No. 87, to the extent that they address matters falling within the scope of the present Convention.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide training and capacity building to labour officers to bolster their capacity to inquire into allegations of anti-union discrimination and to provide detailed statistics on the number of complaints filed, their follow-up in the labour inspectorate and sanctions imposed. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) from 2013 to 2017, 112 complaints were lodged with the Joint Director of Labour (JDL), out of which 103 were settled (39 criminal cases filed and 64 complaints settled amicably) and nine are under investigation (in 2016, all 71 cases were settled, bringing the disposal rate to 100 per cent); (ii) an online database was created on the website of the Directorate of Labour (DoL) to make the process publicly available and more transparent and it currently contains information on the status of 76 cases of anti-union discrimination or unfair labour practices (51 settled cases and 25 ongoing); (iii) the database will include detailed information as to the evolution of the complaint, including time taken to resolve a case, remedies imposed, numbers of reinstatement with or without back pay, number of remedies accepted by the employer versus appealed to courts, time taken for judicial proceedings, percentage of cases where employers’ appeals succeeded and sanctions ultimately imposed; (iv) standard operating procedures (SOPs) for anti-union discrimination and unfair labour practices were recently adopted in order to facilitate and accelerate the handling and investigation of such allegations in a transparent manner following a uniform procedure, and will be piloted in 500 enterprises; and (v) the Government has initiated the upgrading of the DoL to a department, which will result in an increase of manpower from 712 to 921. The Committee further notes the detailed information provided by the Government on the type and number of training and capacity-building activities provided to labour officials, judges, lawyers, workers and employers on matters relevant to the Convention and welcomes, in particular, the specialized and regular training activities conducted to bolster the capacity of labour officials to investigate allegations of anti-union discrimination and unfair labour practices, to develop a credible, efficient and transparent system of arbitration and conciliation and to facilitate effective labour management relations, collective bargaining and prompt and efficient settlement of labour disputes. The Committee also notes the envisaged establishment of a Workers’ Resource Centre, which will act as a centre for excellence for training and awareness-raising of labour officials, workers and employers on conciliation, anti-union discrimination and unfair labour practices. Noting with interest the development of the SOPs and the establishment of a publicly available database on anti-union discrimination, as well as the ongoing training activities conducted for labour officials and the envisaged increase of manpower of the DoL, the Committee expects that all of these measures will contribute to an expedient, efficient and transparent handling of anti-union discrimination complaints.

While taking note of the information provided on the number of complaints lodged to the JDL, the Committee observes that the Government did not indicate the particulars previously requested by the Committee in relation to the handling of complaints of anti-union discrimination and their follow-up in the labour inspectorate (time taken to resolve the disputes, remedies imposed, including the number of cases of reinstatement, the number of remedies accepted by the employers versus appealed to judicial proceedings, time taken for judicial proceedings and the percentage of cases where employers’ appeals succeeded, and sanctions ultimately imposed following full proceedings) but notes that these elements are explicitly enumerated in the SOPs and should, according to the Government, form part of the online database. The Committee requests the Government once again to provide detailed statistics on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination received by the relevant authorities and their follow-up, including all of the abovementioned elements, so as to demonstrate the effectiveness of the SOPs with regard to complaints of anti-union discrimination and unfair labour practices. Further observing that penalties envisaged for unfair labour practices and acts of anti-union discrimination are not sufficiently dissuasive (a fine of maximum 10,000 Bangladeshi taka (BDT) which equals US$120 – section 291(1) of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 (BLA)), the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, after consultation with the social partners, to increase the penalties envisaged for such acts, so as to ensure their sufficiently dissuasive character. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the outcome of the 39 mentioned complaints that gave rise to criminal cases.

In its previous comment under Convention No. 87, the Committee had requested the Government to continue to provide information on the helpline for submission of labour-related complaints targeting the ready-made garment (RMG) sector in the Ashulia area and its expansion to other industrial sectors and geographical areas. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that as of September 2017, a total of 2,068 complaints (mostly concerning issues of wages, overdue payments and job termination) were received from the RMG sector workers in Ashulia, out of which 501 were settled. The Government indicates that the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE) is already dealing with complaints from other geographical areas and industrial sectors, that once sufficient experience is gained, the model will be formally expanded, and that a system is also being developed to prioritize, record and forward labour disputes to the relevant authority, as well as to update statistics to improve transparency and governance in dealing with complaints. Taking due note of this information, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide detailed updates on the functioning of the helpline, including the number and nature of allegations raised, the nature of the follow-up to calls, including steps taken to prevent reprisals against helpline users and preserve their anonymity, the number and nature of investigations undertaken and their outcome. The Committee also requests the Government to clarify the status of the 1,567 complaints that have not been settled.

The Committee further recalls that the Conference Committee had called on the Government to continue to investigate, without delay, all alleged acts of anti-union discrimination, including in the Ashulia area, ensure the reinstatement of those illegally dismissed, and impose fines or criminal sanctions according to the law. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the law enforcement authority is empowered to arrest any person considered to be involved in an unrest and seek redress through courts, which may result in an individual being arrested; (ii) the employer can terminate a worker if it is deemed appropriate following the legal procedures; and (iii) all those who were arrested after the Ashulia incident were released on bail, eight out of 11 cases were disposed of after investigation and the remaining three cases are being investigated. The Committee further notes the information provided by the Government on the role of the Ready-Made Garment Sector Tripartite Consultative Council (RMG TCC) in investigating allegations of anti-union violence and discrimination in two garment factories in Chittagong, in particular that a five-member tripartite investigating committee interviewed the concerned parties, examined relevant documents and prepared a final report and that the situation in the concerned garment factories is currently calm. The Committee also observes that, according to the ITUC, baseless criminal charges remain pending against workers for their involvement in the Ashulia incident and there is little prospect of reinstatement for workers not covered by the agreement concluded after the incident between the Government and IndustriALL. The ITUC also expresses concerns as to the long-standing pattern of unlawful and violent acts, including illegal dismissals of trade union leaders, in a garment group in Chittagong and alleges that the investigating committee established by the RMG TCC, despite being tripartite, showed serious flaws, irregularities and pro management bias both in its investigating process and the final report. The Committee recalls in this regard that allegations of systematic anti-union retaliation were also addressed by the Committee on Freedom of Association (see 382nd Report of the Committee on Freedom of Association, Case No. 3203, paragraphs 170–171). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that any pending proceedings in relation to the Ashulia incident are concluded without delay and that all workers dismissed for anti-union reasons who wish to return to work are reinstated. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard. The Committee expects that any future investigations into concrete allegations of anti-union discrimination will be done in full independence and impartiality and that the Government will continue to take all necessary measures to prevent repeated and institutionalized acts of anti-union discrimination.

In its previous comments, the Committee also requested the Government to provide information on the outcome of the judicial proceedings concerning dismissed workers in the mining sector who were charged with illegal activities (Case No. 345/2011). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that while the first instance court acquitted the accused workers, an appeal for cancellation of this judgment was filed to the District Sessions Court, Dinajpur, and was granted but to date, the defendants have not attended court. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the case once the judgment of the District Sessions Court, Dinajpur has been rendered.

Protection of workers in export processing zones (EPZs) against acts of anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to consider setting up a publicly accessible database specific to the EPZs to render the treatment of anti-union discrimination complaints more transparent; to clarify the role of counsellors-cum-inspectors in addressing such complaints; to provide the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA or Zone Authority) circular on the application of section 62(2) of the Export Processing Zones Workers’ Welfare Associations and Industrial Relations Act, 2010 (EWWAIRA); and to provide statistics on the number of anti-union discrimination complaints brought to the competent authorities, their follow-up and the remedies and sanctions imposed. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) there are no reported cases of anti-union discrimination in the RMG sector but if evidence of such actions is found, appropriate action will be taken; (ii) no workers’ welfare association (WWA) leader or member has ever been dismissed by the Zone Authority for the exercise of their labour rights, WWA members are protected under section 62(2) of the EWWAIRA and to avoid any discrimination, the Zone Authority conducts neutral investigations and personal hearings of the concerned workers, who also have full freedom to submit a complaint to the EPZ Labour Tribunals or the EPZ Labour Appellate Tribunal; (iii) counselor-cum-inspectors are engaged in regular monitoring of compliance issues and handling of labour disputes and there are currently 60 counsellors-cum-inspectors, three conciliators and a panel of arbitrators to resolve allegations of unfair labour practices; (iv) the labour inspection system established by the Zone Authority is effective, transparent, accountable and scalable and assists workers and employers in solving disputes through the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) method; (v) through massive structural changes, the administration system of the EPZs has been brought in line with the BLA and both workers and investors are satisfied with the existing inspection and administration system and consider that involvement of another authority could create dual administration issues, confusion among the parties and even unrest; and (vi) as of May 2017, 161 cases were filed to the EPZ Labour Tribunals and the EPZ Labour Appellate Tribunal, out of which 86 were settled. Noting the Government’s affirmation that there are no reported cases of anti-union discrimination in the RMG sector but observing that, to avoid discrimination, the Zone Authority conducts hearings of the concerned workers, the Committee requests the Government to clarify whether such hearings are done on a preventive basis or as a follow-up to complaints filed by workers. The Committee requests the Government once again to establish an online database for anti-union discrimination complaints specific to the EPZs, so as to ensure full transparency of the process, and to continue to provide statistics on the number of anti-union discrimination complaints brought to the competent authorities, their follow-up and the remedies and sanctions imposed. The Committee also requests detailed information on whether the Government’s helpline for submission of labour-related complaints targeting the RMG sector is fully operational for EPZ workers. Further recalling that according to the information provided by the Government to the Conference Committee, administration and inspection of factories in EPZs would fall under the BLA, the Committee requests the Government once again to take the necessary measures to bring the EPZs within the purview of the Ministry of Labour and the Labour Inspectorate. The Committee is also obliged once again to request the Government to provide a copy of the BEPZA circular on the application of section 62(2) of the EWWAIRA.

The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that Chapters IX, X and XV of the draft Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Labour Act (EPZ Labour Act) have been redrafted through tripartite consultations on the basis of ILO observations and comments of collective bargaining agents and investors but observes the need to continue to review the draft law to ensure its conformity with the Convention regarding the following matters: specific categories of workers continue to be excluded from the law (workers in supervisory and managerial positions – section 2(49)) or from Chapter IX dealing with WWAs (members of the watch and ward, drivers, confidential assistants, cipher assistants, casual workers, workers employed by kitchen or food preparation contractors and workers employed in clerical posts – section 93); power of the Executive Chairperson to rule on the legitimacy of a transfer or termination of a WWA representative (section 120); lack of specific measures to remedy acts of anti-union discrimination except in case of WWA officials covered by section 120; insufficiently dissuasive fines for unfair labour practices – a maximum of US$600 (section 150(1)); and Chapter XIV (previously Chapter XV) on administration and labour inspection runs counter to the notion of an independent public authority to apply the laws fairly. In this regard, the Committee also refers to its detailed comments made under Convention No. 87. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, in the framework of the ongoing revision of the draft EPZ Labour Act and in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that all workers covered by the Convention are adequately protected against acts of anti-union discrimination, including through recourse to an independent authority, adequate remedies and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions.

Articles 2 and 3. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference. For several years, the Committee has been requesting the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to review the BLA with a view to including adequate protection for workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or employers’ organizations, which would also cover financial control of trade unions or trade union leaders and acts of interference in internal affairs. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that legislative reform is a continuous process which has to take into account feedback from the stakeholders and the changing socio-economic context of the country. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that a Tripartite Technical Committee (TTC) was recently established to suggest and identify areas for amendment of the BLA and that after several meetings, an initial draft of the BLA was prepared. The Government states that in November 2017, a further tripartite committee for amendment of the BLA was formed by the Ministry of Labour and Employment (MOLE) and prepared a report with recommendations on how to address the pending ILO observations. While welcoming these initiatives to review the BLA, the Committee regrets that the proposed amendments do not address the Committee’s long-standing concerns with regard to comprehensive protection against acts of interference and that, as a result, protection in this regard remains limited: section 202(13) of the BLA prohibits employer’s interference in the conduct of elections for a collective bargaining agent and Rule 187(2) of the Bangladesh Labour Rules (BLR) prohibits interference in elections of workers’ representatives to participation committees but these provisions do not cover all acts of interference prohibited under Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to ensure that the need for explicit provisions granting full protection against acts of interference is given adequate attention in the ongoing review of the BLA, so as to ensure that workers’ and employers’ organizations are effectively protected against acts of interference both in law and in practice. The Committee expects that the social partners will be fully consulted in this process and firmly hopes that the Government will be able to report progress in this regard in the near future.

Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference in the EPZs. In its previous comment, having observed that neither the EWWAIRA nor the EPZ Labour Act contained a comprehensive protection against acts of interference in trade union affairs, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to review the relevant legislation in this respect. The Committee welcomes the initiative to review the EPZ Labour Act mentioned above and notes that while the draft contains certain provisions prohibiting interference by workers’ and employers’ organizations in each other’s internal affairs (sections 114(1)(f) and 115(3)), they do not cover all acts of interference prohibited under Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to continue to review the relevant legislation, in consultation with the social partners, so as to ensure a comprehensive protection against all acts of interference of workers’ and employers’ organizations in each other’s establishment, functioning or administration, including acts designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of an employer, to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the objective of placing them under the control of an employer or an employers’ organization, to exercise pressure in favour or against any workers’ organization, etc.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the practical application of section 202A(1) of the BLA, which enables collective bargaining agents and employers to contact experts for assistance in collective bargaining. The Committee notes that the Government simply reiterates the content of the provision without providing any information as to its application in practice. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government once again to indicate whether and how section 202A(1) of the BLA has been used in practice in the context of collective bargaining.

The Committee further notes the information provided by the Government in relation to the Committee’s previous concerns as to the possible undermining of trade unions by participation committees, in particular that section 205(6a) of the BLA was adopted to redress the interests of workers in an establishment where there is no trade union and their function is thus to improve workers’ welfare and not to substitute for trade unions, that under the proposed amendment to section 205 of the BLA, there will be no need to establish a participation committee where there is a trade union and that should any concrete allegations of participation committees undermining trade unions be brought to the Government’s attention, it will take the necessary measures to remedy the situation.

The Committee also observes that, according to the ITUC, Rule 4(4) of the BLR gives the Inspector General total discretion to shape the outcome of service rules and determine their conformity with the law, whereas such rules are often the subject of collective bargaining in enterprises with trade unions, and that Rule 202, which prohibits certain trade union activities is drafted so broadly as to impinge on the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining, as any bargaining on wages, hiring and transfers could constitute a prohibited action. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of Rule 202 in practice, in particular, to indicate whether collective bargaining has been prohibited, suspended or penalized as a result of the application of this provision and to ensure that Rule 4(4) is not used to limit collective bargaining in enterprises where trade unions are established.

Higher-level collective bargaining. The Committee had previously requested the Government to consider, in consultation with the social partners, amending sections 202 and 203 of the BLA in order to clearly provide a legal basis for collective bargaining at the industry, sector and national levels and to continue to provide statistics on the number of higher-level collective agreements concluded, the areas of industry to which they apply and the number of workers covered. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates that there is no restriction on settlement of disputes and different issues through bipartite negotiation or conciliation at industry, sector or national levels and indicates that between September 2013 and 2016, 41 collective bargaining agreements were concluded. While taking note of the information provided, the Committee observes that no legislative changes have been introduced to the relevant provisions despite the ongoing review of the BLA and requests the Government once again to consider, in consultation with the social partners, amending sections 202 and 203 of the BLA to clearly provide a legal basis for collective bargaining at the industry, sector and national levels. Further observing that the information provided by the Government lacks certain elements previously called for, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of higher-level collective agreements concluded (at the sectoral and national levels), the areas of industry to which they apply and the number of workers covered.

Determination of collective bargaining agents. The Committee had previously noted that where there is more than one trade union in an enterprise, a collective bargaining agent will be determined, upon application by a trade union or the employer, through a secret ballot and that the trade union that secures the highest number of votes will be declared as the collective bargaining agent, providing that it obtains the votes of at least one third of the total workers employed in the establishment (section 202(15) of the BLA). The Committee had recalled that such percentage requirements for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent could impair in certain cases, in particular in large enterprises, the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining but had observed the Government’s indication that the percentage requirement had been repealed. The Committee observes, however, that section 202(15) still provides that a trade union may not become a collective bargaining agent unless it obtains the votes of at least one third of the total number of workers employed in the establishment. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide clarification on the exact requirements for a trade union to become a collective bargaining agent and recalls that if, under a system for nominating an exclusive bargaining agent, there is no union representing the required percentage to be so designated, unions should be able to bargain collectively, at least on behalf of their own members.

Compulsory arbitration. The Committee observes that according to the proposed amendments to section 210(10)–(12) of the BLA, if an industrial dispute is not settled through conciliation, the conciliator shall refer the dispute to an arbitrator, whose award is final without any possible appeal. The Committee recalls in this regard that the imposition of arbitration with compulsory effects in cases where the parties have not reached an agreement is one of the most radical forms of intervention by the authorities in collective bargaining and is contrary to Article 4 of the Convention which aims at promoting free and voluntary collective bargaining. Arbitration with compulsory effects should only be possible where both parties agree to it, or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, in disputes in the public service involving public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6 of the Convention) or in the event of acute national or local crisis. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that any proposed amendment takes into account the situations enumerated above.

Promotion of collective bargaining in the EPZs. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide examples of collective bargaining agreements concluded in the EPZs and to continue to provide statistics in this regard. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that as of November 2017, WWAs have been formed and are active in 74 per cent of eligible enterprises and that during the last four years, WWAs submitted 411 charters of demands, all of which were settled amicably and agreements were signed, thus demonstrating that EPZ workers enjoy the right to collective bargaining. Further observing that section 175(c) of the draft EPZ Labour Act allows the Executive Chairperson of the Zone Authority to determine the legitimacy of any WWA and its capacity to act as a collective bargaining agent, the Committee recalls that the determination of bargaining agents should be carried out by a body offering every guarantee of independence and objectivity. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any cases where the Executive Chairperson rejected the legitimacy of a WWA and its capacity to act as a collective bargaining agent, and further requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the determination of collective bargaining agents in EPZs is the prerogative of an independent body. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of collective bargaining agreements concluded in the EPZs and the number of workers covered, along with some sample agreements.

Emphasizing the desirability of providing equal protection to workers in EPZs and outside the zones in terms of the right to organize and bargain collectively, the Committee requests the Government to continue to review the draft EPZ Labour Act, in consultation with the social partners, to bring it in line with the BLA (as revised in line with the Committee’s comments) and the Convention.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide details on the manner in which organizations of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State can bargain collectively and copies of any agreements reached. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that in some public sector organizations, agencies and corporations, employees below the rank of officers who usually perform non-administrative jobs are allowed to negotiate through employees’ associations, whose elected representatives can submit claims to the competent authority, which evaluates them in the socio-economic context of the country. According to the Government, this system of negotiation has been practiced for a long time without any major objection from the employees, an administrative appellate tribunal has been established to settle disputes in the public service and aggrieved persons may also appeal to High Courts and Supreme Courts. Observing that, according to the Government, collective bargaining only takes place in some public sector organizations and agencies and is only allowed for lower ranking officers, the Committee recalls that recognition of the right to collective bargaining is general in scope and all workers in the public and private sectors must benefit from it, with the only possible exception of the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State. In view of the above, the Committee requests the Government to clarify what specific categories of workers in the public sector can bargain collectively and to indicate the criteria based on which this right is granted. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to endeavour to extend the right to collective bargaining to all public sector workers covered by the Convention and to provide examples of collective agreements concluded in the public sector.

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

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Adequate protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes with concern the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) submitted under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), alleging numerous instances of anti-union discrimination, slowness of the labour inspectorate in responding to such allegations and the lack of adequate sanctions in practice, as well as a serious lack of commitment to the rule of law in this respect. The Committee also notes the conclusions of the high-level tripartite mission that visited Bangladesh in April 2016, which noted with concern the numerous allegations of anti-union discrimination and harassment of workers, including dismissals, blacklisting, transfers, arrests, detention, threats and false criminal charges combined with insufficient labour inspection, lack of remedy and redress and delays in judicial proceedings. The Committee further recalls that the Conference Committee, when examining the individual case of Bangladesh under Convention No. 87 in June 2016, urged the Government to investigate as a matter of urgency all acts of anti-union discrimination, ensure the reinstatement of those illegally dismissed, and impose fines or criminal sanctions (particularly in cases of violence against trade unionists) according to the law. In light of these considerations, the Committee trusts that all complaints of anti-union discrimination will be dealt with expeditiously and effectively. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide training and capacity building to labour officers to bolster their capacity to inquire into allegations of anti-union discrimination and ensure adequate protection in this respect. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistics on the number of complaints filed, their follow-up in the labour inspectorate, including time taken to resolve them, the remedies imposed, including the number of cases of reinstatement with or without back pay, the number of remedies accepted by employers versus appealed to judicial proceedings, time taken for judicial proceedings and the percentage of cases where employers’ appeals succeed, and sanctions ultimately imposed following full proceedings.

Protection of workers in export processing zones (EPZs) against acts of anti-union discrimination. The Committee had previously requested the Government to reply to the 2011 ITUC allegations of an increase in anti-union discrimination and expressed trust that the national mechanisms would be bolstered, including with an online database, so that workers could confidently report such acts. It also requested the Government to provide: the available statistics concerning complaints of anti-union discrimination, their follow-up and sanctions imposed; information on the role of counsellors-cum-inspectors; and the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) circular on section 62(2) of the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Association and Industrial Relations Act (EWWAIRA). The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) to address allegations of unfair labour practices and handle labour disputes, conciliators, arbitrators, 60 counsellors-cum-inspectors, seven labour courts and one labour appellate tribunal are active in the EPZs; (ii) any aggrieved party, including individual workers and job-separated workers, have the right to file a case before the labour courts; (iii) since their establishment in 2011, a total of 161 cases were filed before the EPZ labour courts, out of which 86 were settled and there are currently no complaints of anti-union discrimination pending; and (iv) BEPZA carries out intensive training programmes on issues related to sound industrial relations, grievance handling procedures and social dialogue. Observing the discrepancy between, on the one hand, the ITUC’s allegations of numerous acts of anti-union discrimination and, on the other, the Government’s indication that there are currently no complaints pending in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to consider setting up a publicly accessible database in order to render the treatment of anti-union discrimination complaints more transparent; to clarify the role of counsellors-cum-inspectors in addressing such complaints; and to provide the BEPZA circular on the application of section 62(2) of the EWWAIRA. The Committee further requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of anti-union discrimination complaints brought to the competent authorities, their follow-up and the remedies and sanctions imposed.

The Committee also requested the Government to provide information on the outcome of the judicial proceedings concerning the dismissed workers who were charged with illegal activities (Case No. 345/2011, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dinajpur). The Committee notes the Government’s statement that all the main issues of the conflict have been resolved through tripartite agreement, that there is currently no unrest or grievance of the workers and that Case No. 345/2011 is still pending. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the case once the judgment has been rendered.

Article 2. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference. For several years, the Committee had requested the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to review the Bangladesh Labour Act (BLA) with a view to including adequate protection for workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or employers’ organizations, which would also cover acts of financial control of trade unions or trade union leaders and acts of interference in internal affairs. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the 2013 amendment of the BLA was a tripartite process resulting in consensus, that its implementation and enforcement following the adoption of the 2015 Bangladesh Labour Rules requires sufficient time and space and that while legal reform is a continuous process, it should be in line with the industrial development of a country. Observing that the high-level tripartite mission was alerted to alleged close links between factory owners, on the one hand, and government members, parliamentary members and local political figures, on the other, often resulting in interference in trade union affairs, the Committee regrets that no effective action has been taken to address the Committee’s concerns. Therefore, the Committee reiterates its previous request that the Government take the necessary measures to enact legislation as soon as possible to provide adequate protection for workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or employers’ organizations.

Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference in the EPZs. The Committee observes that a similar legislative lacuna exists in both the EWWAIRA and the draft EPZ Labour Act, neither of which contains a comprehensive protection against acts of interference in trade union affairs. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to take the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to review the relevant legislation in this respect.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate how section 202(a) of the BLA, which enables unions and employers to contact experts for assistance in collective bargaining, was applied in practice and whether there have been any disputes in respect of such experts under section 202(a)(2) of the BLA. Noting the Government’s indication that no cases of disputes have been observed in this regard, the Committee requests the Government once again to provide information on the practical application of section 202(a)(1) of the BLA.

Referring to sections 202 and 203 of the BLA, the Committee requested the Government to consider, with the social partners, the necessary measures to ensure that collective bargaining could effectively take place at all levels and to continue to provide statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded at the industry, sector and national levels. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there is no restriction on the settlement of disputes and other issues through bipartite negotiation or conciliation at the industry, sector and national levels, that as of August 2016, 358 elections for collective bargaining agents were held in 15 sectors (ready-made garment (RMG) sector: 311; tea sector: one; shrimp sector: 16; other sectors: 30) and that there are instances of collective bargaining in the RMG, tea and shrimp sectors. The Committee further notes the information provided by the Government to the high-level tripartite mission, indicating that while collective bargaining generally took place at the factory level, there were strong trade unions in the leather and tea sectors, some of which had negotiated branch-level collective bargaining agreements. The Committee, however, notes that the high-level tripartite mission also received information alleging the absence of a legislative basis for branch-level collective bargaining, the lack of social dialogue and only a limited number of functioning collective bargaining agreements. Welcoming the Government’s openness towards higher-level collective bargaining, the Committee requests it once again to consider, in consultation with the social partners, amending sections 202 and 203 of the BLA in order to clearly provide a legal basis for collective bargaining at the industry, sector and national levels. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of higher-level collective agreements concluded, the areas of industry to which they apply and the number of workers covered, and invites the Government to encourage collective bargaining at all levels.

The Committee also requested the Government to provide its comments on the ITUC’s concern that section 205(6)(a) of the BLA, which provides that workers’ representatives in the participation committees will run activities related to workers’ interests in an establishment where there is no trade union and until a trade union is formed, could undermine trade unions and usurp their role, and requested it to indicate any measures taken to ensure that participation committees are not used in this manner. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the BLA does not restrict the formation of trade unions and the participation committees are not alternate but complementary to trade unions and, therefore, do not undermine trade union activities. The Committee trusts that should any concrete allegations of participation committees undermining trade unions be brought to its attention, the Government will take the necessary measures to remedy the situation.

Promotion of collective bargaining in the EPZs. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to transmit a few representative examples of collective bargaining agreements concluded in enterprises in the EPZs. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) up until June 2016, referendums had been held in 304 out of 409 eligible enterprises in the EPZs and workers in 225 enterprises had opted to form workers’ welfare associations (WWAs), which have been registered and are actively performing as collective bargaining agents; and (ii) from January 2013 to December 2015, the WWAs submitted 260 charters of demands, all of which were settled amicably and concluded by the signing of agreements, thus demonstrating the workers’ right to collective bargaining. The Committee regrets, however, that the Government failed to provide copies of such agreements and, therefore, requests it once again to provide examples of collective bargaining agreements concluded in the EPZs and to continue to provide statistics in this regard.

The Committee also requested the Government to indicate progress made with regard to the revision of the EWWAIRA and the manner in which workers in the EPZs could be brought under the coverage of the BLA. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that after a wide range of consultations with the social partners and other relevant stakeholders, a comprehensive draft Bangladesh EPZ Labour Act was approved by the Cabinet and is in the process of adoption by the Parliament. The Committee observes, however, that in relation to matters of unfair labour practices and collective bargaining (Chapter X), the draft Act mainly reflects the text of the EWWAIRA. Emphasizing the desirability of providing equal protection to workers in the EPZs and outside the zones in terms of the right to organize and bargain collectively, the Committee hopes that the Government, in consultation with the social partners, will pursue its efforts in this regard.

Articles 4 and 6. Collective bargaining in the public sector. For a number of years, the Committee urged the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State by means of simple consultations in government-appointed tripartite wages commissions, so as to favour free and voluntary negotiations between workers’ organizations and employers or their organizations. In its last comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide statistics on the number and nature of collective agreements concluded in the public sector, including the number of workers covered. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) public sector employees are outside the scope of the BLA and there are no tripartite commissions in purely public enterprises, which only consist of two parties – the employees and the Government; (ii) wages and other benefits in the public sector are determined under free and open discussions and voluntary negotiations within the Wage Commission for the officers and employees employed in the Republic or the Wage and Productivity Commission for public sector enterprises. The Committee recalls that all workers, with the only possible exception of the armed forces, the police and public servants engaged in the administration of the State, should enjoy the right to free and voluntary collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide further details on the manner in which organizations of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State can bargain collectively and copies of any agreements reached.

[The Committee requests the Government to reply in full to the present comments in 2017.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report and particularly the amendments made to the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, (hereinafter, the BLA) on 22 July 2013.

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the Bangladesh Employers’ Federation (BEF) concerning the application of the Convention and requests the Government to provide its observations thereon with its next report.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Protection of workers in export processing zones (EPZs) against anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 4 and 31 August 2011, concerning mass dismissal of workers in the garment sector in 2010 following the exercise of their trade union rights, as well as the Government’s observations thereon. The Committee further notes from the communication of the ITUC under Convention No. 87 that, while the registration of 45 new unions in the ready-made garment sector can be seen as positive, it has a number of concerns relating to reports of anti-union acts. The ITUC also raises concern about the potentially broad interpretation that might be given to “disorderly behaviour” which has been added to the instances where an employer may fire a worker without notice and without compensation (section 23(4)(g)).

The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the Bangladesh Export Processing Zone Authority (BEPZA) protects the rights of workers in EPZs and denies the existence of discrimination. According to the Government, there is no real evidence of discrimination and the BEPZA officers are constantly on the lookout for such behaviour. If any such was brought to the notice of the authority, actions are taken for reinstatement of members of the Workers’ Welfare Associations (WWA). The Government refers to section 62(2) of the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Association and Industrial Relations Act (hereinafter, the EWWAIRA), 2010, which provides that officers of the WWA shall not be dismissed without prior approval of the BEPZA Executive Chairmen, and indicates that a circular has been sent to all enterprises within the zones for the application of this section.

As regards the allegations of anti-union discrimination due to the employer’s knowledge of union officers seeking registration, the Committee notes with interest that section 178(3) of the BLA has been amended so as to repeal the provision requiring the Director of Labour to send the list of officers of trade unions requesting registration to the employer.

As regards the functioning of the EPZ labour tribunal and the EPZ labour appellate tribunal under the EWWAIRA, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the EPZ Labour Tribunal and the EPZ Labour Appellate Tribunal have been established through Statutory Regulatory Orders (SRO) Nos 264-Law/2011 and 265-Law/2011 of 16 August 2011, and that there is no complaint of anti-union discrimination presented by EPZ workers before these courts.

The Committee further takes due note of information provided by the Government in relation to the constitution of the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Fund, effective from February 2013, which will cover the expenses of counsellors, conciliators and arbitrators, as well as the establishment of the tribunals. According to the Government, while the BEPZA had already appointed conciliators and arbitrators, they did not continue as there were very few cases requiring their attention. Now, appointment of the conciliators as per the newly established fund is under process. In its report under Convention No. 87, the Government provides further information from the BEPZA that 90 counsellors under the BEPZA authority are working with a prescribed form to look after labour-related issues.

The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the points raised by the ITUC concerning an increase in anti-union discrimination and trusts that the national mechanisms will be bolstered, including with an online database, so that workers may confidently report any such acts and seek an appropriate remedy. It requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the steps taken in this regard and on the role played by the counsellors mentioned above. It further requests the Government to send a copy of the BEPZA circular on section 62(2) of the EWWAIRA (which was not attached to its report) and available statistics concerning any complaints of anti-union discrimination, the BEPZA response and the sanctions taken and/or remedies awarded.

As regards the judicial proceedings concerning the dismissed workers who were charged with illegal activities (345/2011, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dinajpur), the Committee notes the Government’s indication that this case is still pending and requests the Government to provide information on the outcome once the judgment has been rendered.

Article 2. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take steps when reviewing the BLA to include a comprehensive prohibition against acts of interference which would cover acts of financial control of trade unions or trade union leaders, as well as acts of interference in internal trade union affairs. According to the comment of the IOE and the BEF, workers and employees of Bangladesh can freely exercise the right of association without hindrance, but outsiders interfere with their activities and mislead them for the purpose of political gain. Observing that the recent amendments to the BLA do not appear to address its previous request, the Committee once again requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to review the BLA with a view to including adequate protection for workers’ organizations against such acts of interference by the employer or employers’ organizations and to indicate the progress made in this regard in its next report.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee notes with interest the amendments made to the BLA with the inclusion of section 202a, which enables unions and employers to contact experts for assistance in collective bargaining, and requests the Government to indicate how this is applied in practice and whether there have been any disputes under section 202a(2).

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that according to the National Level Trade Union Federation of Workers (NCCWE), collective bargaining was limited as there was no legal provision for collective bargaining at the industry, sector or national levels. While observing the information provided by the Government in its last report that the settlement of disputes through bipartite negotiations was done at the industry level and that similarly, different issues were settled through bipartite negotiation or through conciliation at the sector level, such as tea sector, shrimp sector, etc., the Committee had once again requested the Government to amend sections 202 and 203 of the BLA in order to clearly provide that collective bargaining was possible at the industry, sector and national levels. The Committee further notes that the Government’s latest report indicates that three elections for collective bargaining agents have taken place as of November 2013. The Committee also notes the comments from the IOE and the BEF indicating that the BLA has been framed so as to encourage the employees to promote full development and utilization of collective agreements to regulate terms and conditions of employment. Observing that the amendments adopted in July 2013 do not address this issue, the Committee once again requests the Government to consider, with the social partners, the necessary measures to ensure that collective bargaining can effectively take place at all levels and to continue to provide statistics in its next report on the number of collective agreements concluded at the industry, sector and national levels respectively.

Finally, the Committee notes the concerns raised in the ITUC comment relating to the amendments on participation committees (section 205 of the BLA), especially the concern that section 205(6)(a), which provides that “For an establishment where there is no trade union, until a trade union is formed, the workers’ representatives to the Participation Committee shall run activities related to workers’ interests in the establishment concerned”, could undermine trade unions and usurp their role. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on this point and to indicate any measures taken to ensure that participation committees are not used to undermine the role of trade unions.

Promotion of collective bargaining in the EPZs. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had observed that, despite the creation of WWAs in various enterprises in the EPZs, no information had been provided concerning the conclusion of collective agreements in the EPZs. The Committee further recalled, with reference to BEPZA Instructions 1 and 2, that excluding wages, working hours, rest periods, leave and conditions of work from the field of collective bargaining was not in harmony with Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee takes due note of the comments made by the IOE and the BEF indicating that the Government may think over the need to leave room for collective bargaining in the EPZs and take action in conformity with Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee further notes the information provided by the Government that out of a total of 421 enterprises operating in the zones, referendums were held for WWAs in 283 giving rise to collective agreements in 192 enterprises. The Committee requests the Government to transmit in its next report a few representative examples of these agreements, indicating the number of workers covered.

Encouraged by the discussion in the Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2013 concerning the application by Bangladesh of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), in which the Government expressed its willingness to review the EWWAIRA and consider the manner in which EPZ workers could be brought under the coverage of the BLA, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the progress made in this regard.

Articles 4 and 6. Tripartite wages commissions in the public sector. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector through simple consultation by means of government appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974) and had observed that the Government had not referred to any collective agreement in the public sector. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in respect of the commissions and boards charged with reviewing minimum wages, all of which are constituted in accordance with tripartite principles. Taking due note of the Government’s indication that there is no bar on the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining, the Committee requests the Government to provide statistics on the number and nature of collective agreements concluded in the public sector, including the approximate number of workers covered under each agreement.

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

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Protection of workers in export processing zones (EPZs) against anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 4 and 31 August 2011, concerning the dismissal of more than 5,000 employees in the garment sector in 2010 following their exercise of their trade union rights as well as several cases in which the leaders of worker welfare associations have been fired in retaliation for the exercise of trade union rights. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the number of 5,000 fired garment workers is not based on findings of any survey nor is it established by research. It states that this type of exaggerated figure not only misleads the policy-makers but creates perplexity in the minds of all concerned. The Government indicates that the conflicts that have led to the dismissal of several leaders of worker welfare associations have been resolved. It further explains that in one case, the dismissed workers were involved in illegal activities and that a criminal case has been filed against them (345/2011, under trial at the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Dinajpur). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the judicial proceedings in Case No. 345/2011.

Moreover, the Committee had noted that the ITUC referred to numerous problems concerning the application of the Convention in the EPZ sector, particularly in the garment industry. The ITUC further stated that although the law provides for the establishment of an EPZ labour tribunal and an EPZ labour appellate, these two bodies had yet to be established, thus denying workers access to the judicial system for their grievances. The Committee had requested the Government to provide information in respect of these matters, including information on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination in the EPZ sector submitted to the competent authorities, as well as the outcomes of those complaints.

As concerns the establishment of an EPZ Labour Tribunal and an EPZ Labour Appellate, the Committee had previously noted that according to the Government, EPZ workers could seek judicial redress in cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee noted that in August 2010, the Parliament passed the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Associations and Industrial Relations Act 2010 (EWWAIRA) which provides for the establishment of an EPZ Labour Tribunal and a Labour Appellate Tribunal. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that these bodies have been set up by notifications published in the Official Gazette on 16 August 2011. The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report: (i) statistics on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination presented by workers in the EPZs before the EPZ Labour Tribunal and the Labour Appellate Tribunal; (ii) a summary of the decisions reached by the two tribunals, including any remedies awarded; and (iii) a copy of the notifications published in the Official Gazette on 16 August 2011.

The Committee further noted that the Government indicated in its report that the intervention of counsellors is well established in all EPZs to deal with employees’ grievances (e.g. harassment, dismissal, violence) and that conciliators and arbitrators have the power to resolve disputes after counsellors, as per sections 40–45 of the EWWAIRA 2010. However, the Committee noted that according to the ITUC’s 2011 comments, the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) had not yet appointed new conciliators (when the 2004 Act expired, the Government did not extend the tenure of the EPZ conciliator who was appointed under that act) as required under the EWWAIRA 2010, thus hampering industrial dispute resolution in the EPZs. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that 60 counsellors work in different industries of different zones since 1 June 2005 to implement the EWWAIRA. It further notes the indication of the Government that it will appoint conciliators as soon as the “EPZ Workers’ Welfare and Industrial Relations Fund, Constitution and Operation Policy” is approved. General Managers, Officers of the Industrial Relations Department, and counsellors of the respective zones are scheduling frequent hearings between management and workers to mitigate problems. As a result, the Government indicates that the rate of grievances has reduced remarkably. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the approval of the “EPZ Workers’ Welfare and Industrial Relations Fund, Constitution and Operation Policy” and on the appointment of conciliators.

Article 2. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference. The Committee had previously noted that the Labour Act 2006 did not contain a prohibition of acts of interference designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or their organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the object of placing them under the control of employers or their organizations, and had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to adopt such a prohibition. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that protective measures are laid down in the Labour Act, particularly in sections 195 and 196 concerning “unfair labour practice on the part of the employer”, and that such act by the employer is an offence punishable under section 291 of the Labour Act, which provides for a prison term which may extend to two years or with a fine of up to 10,000 Bangladeshi taka (BDT), or both. The Committee notes that amendments to the Labour Act have been submitted to the Tripartite Consultative Council (TCC) on 9 February 2012. It notes that the proposed amendments do not seem to contain comprehensive prohibition that covers acts of financial control of trade unions or trade union leaders, as well as acts of interference in internal trade union affairs. The Committee hopes that such a prohibition will be included in the amendments and once again requests the Government to send the latest draft amendments and to provide information on developments in this regard, including on the enactment of the proposed provisions and any complaints filed under them.

Article 4. Legal requirements for collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had referred to section 179(2) of the Labour Act, which provides that a trade union may only obtain registration if it represents 30 per cent of the workers in an establishment, as well as to section 202(15) of the Labour Act, which provides that if there is more than one trade union in an enterprise, the Director of Labour shall hold a secret ballot to determine the collective bargaining agent. The Committee recalled that the percentage requirements for registration of a trade union, and for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent set out in sections 179(2) and 202(15) of the Labour Act, 2006, may impair in certain cases, in particular in respect of large enterprises, the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the 30 per cent requirement opens the opportunity to workers to form three trade unions in an establishment and to join any of these trade unions. The Committee noted that the Government indicates in its report that the percentage requirement in section 202(15) has been repealed and that it is the trade union that secures the highest number of votes that is declared as the collective bargaining agent. In this regard, the Committee refers to its observations under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

The Committee further noted that according to the National Level Trade Union Federation of Workers (NCCWE), collective bargaining is limited as there is no legal provision for collective bargaining at the industry, sector or national levels. In this regard, the Committee noted the Government’s indications that: (i) sections 202 and 203 of the Labour Act, 2006, directly concerns collective bargaining; (ii) the settlement of disputes through bipartite negotiations is done at the industry level and that similarly, different issues are settled through bipartite negotiation or through conciliation at the sector level, such as tea sector, shrimp sector, etc.; (iii) collective bargaining was also done at the national level through consultation with the Workers’ Federation but such practice no longer prevails; and (iv) there are currently 7,297 trade unions registered with the Department of Labour, 32 national federations, 112 industrial federations and 36 garments industries federations and a total of 11 collective bargaining agreements. The Committee notes that the proposed amendments to the Labour Act, 2006, which will be examined again by a Tripartite Consultative Council (TCC), do not concern sections 202 and 203. The Committee once again requests the Government to amend sections 202 and 203 of the Labour Act, 2006, in order to provide clearly that collective bargaining is possible at the industry, sector and national levels. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded at the industry, sector and national levels respectively in its next report.

Promotion of collective bargaining in the EPZs. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the extent of collective bargaining in the EPZ sector, including statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded and the number of workers they cover. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in October 2011, there were 302 enterprises eligible for Workers Welfare Associations (WWAs) among 368 in operation and that workers’ associations referendums were held in 208 enterprises. Elections of WWAs were held in 146 enterprises and WWAs were formed. The activities of all executive committees of WWAs include being collective bargaining agents. However, no information was provided by the Government concerning the conclusion of collective agreements in the EPZs. The Committee noted that according to the ITUC, while elected WWAs (what, according to the ITUC, substitutes for trade unions in the absence of a legal right to form one) in the EPZs have been established, employers have failed to take the next step and bargain collectively as required by the EWWAIRA 2010. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to provide information in its next report on the extent of collective bargaining in the EPZ sector, including statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded since 2008, and the number of workers they cover.

The Committee further noted that according to the ITUC, there has been little progress on collective bargaining in the EPZs and that this is largely due to the BEPZA’s insistence that there is no room for collective bargaining on any working conditions above the minimum standards already established in the Labour Act and the BEPZA Instructions 1 and 2. The ITUC added that this largely eviscerates the bargaining provisions of the EWWAIRA 2010 and leaves no room for collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that excluding wages, working hours, rest periods, leave and conditions of works from the field of collective bargaining is not in harmony with Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government once again to ensure that this principle is applied in practice in the EPZs and to provide a copy of the BEPZA Instructions 1 and 2.

Articles 4 and 6. Tripartite wages commissions in the public sector. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, it had requested the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). The Committee noted that the Government indicated in its report that this system does not prevent free and voluntary collective bargaining. Nevertheless, the Committee, while recognizing the singularity of the public sector which allows special modalities, considered that simple consultation with unions of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State does not meet the requirements of Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee underlines that the Government has not referred to any collective agreement in the public sector. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures, legislative or not, to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State by means of simple consultation in government appointed tripartite wages commissions, so as to favour free and voluntary negotiations between workers’ organizations and employers or their organizations. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or contemplated in this regard and to provide statistics on the number and nature of collective agreements concluded in the public sector.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

The Committee notes the comments submitted by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on 4 and 31 August 2011, concerning the dismissal of more than 5,000 employees in the garment sector in 2010, in response to workers’ exercise of their trade union rights as well as several cases in which the leaders of worker welfare societies have been fired in retaliation for the exercise of trade union rights. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the comments submitted by the National Level Trade Union Federation of Workers (NCCWE), sent along with the Government’s report, stating that there is a weak implementation of labour law in general, and more particularly an unwillingness of employers to recognize trade unions and collective bargaining. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that with all its capacity, it has been very much committed to implement the provision of the Labour Act, 2006, all over the country and that it has established a Department of Labour (MOLE) which looks after the trade unions aspects in the country and a Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE). The Committee further notes that the Government has started the implementation of a Better Work Programme, with the assistance of the ILO.

Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention. Protection of workers in export processing zones (EPZs) against anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that the ITUC referred to numerous problems concerning the application of the Convention in the EPZ sector, particularly in the garment industry. The ITUC further stated that although the law provides for the establishment of an EPZ labour tribunal and an EPZ labour appellate, these two bodies had yet to be established, thus denying workers access to the judicial system for their grievances. The Committee had requested the Government to provide information in respect of these matters, including information on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination in the EPZ sector submitted to the competent authorities, as well as the outcomes of those complaints.

As concerns the establishment of an EPZ Labour Tribunal and an EPZ Labour Appellate, the Committee had previously noted that according to the Government, EPZ workers could seek judicial redress in cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee had noted that the Government had decided to allow the existing labour courts of the country (established under the Labour Act, 2006) to dispose of EPZs industrial disputes and settle the workers’ complaints, by incorporating necessary modifications in sections 56 and 59 of the EPZ Workers Association and Industrial Relation Act 2004. The Committee notes that in August 2010, the Parliament passed the EPZ Workers’ Welfare Societies and Industrial Relations Act 2010 (EWWSIRA) and that section 52 specifies that until the EPZ Labour Tribunal is established under section 48 and the EPZ Labour Appellate Tribunal is established under section 51, labour courts established under section 214 and the Labour Appellate Tribunal established under section 218 of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 shall be deemed to be the EPZ Labour Tribunal and the EPZ Labour Appellate Tribunal respectively for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The Committee also notes that the Government indicates in its report that two separate orders will be published within very short time regarding the EPZ Labour Tribunal and EPZ Labour Appellate Tribunal. The Committee recalls the principle that the Government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination and must ensure that complaints of anti-union discrimination are examined in the framework of national procedures which should be prompt, impartial and considered as such by the parties concerned. The Committee requests the Government: (i) to provide statistics in its next report on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination presented by workers in the EPZs before the labour courts established under sections 214 and 218 of the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006; and (ii) to indicate the progress made regarding the adoption of the two separate orders on the EPZ Labour Tribunal and EPZ Labour Appellate Tribunal and to provide a copy of those two orders when adopted.

The Committee further notes that the Government indicates in its report that the intervention of counsellors is well established in all EPZs to deal with employees’ grievances (e.g. harassment, dismissal, violence) and that conciliators and arbitrators have the power to resolve disputes after counsellors, as per sections 40–45 of the EWWSIRA 2010. However, the Committee notes that according to the ITUC’s 2011 comments, the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) has not yet appointed new conciliators (when the 2004 Act expired, the Government did not extend the tenure of the EPZ conciliator who was appointed under that act) as required under the EWWSIRA 2010 thus hampering industrial dispute resolution in the EPZs. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to appoint new conciliators in the very near future, as requested under the EWWSIRA 2010.

Article 2. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference. The Committee had previously noted that the Labour Act 2006 did not contain a prohibition of acts of interference designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or their organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the object of placing them under the control of employers or their organizations, and had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to adopt such a prohibition. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that protective measures are laid down in the Labour Act, particularly in sections 195 and 196 concerning “unfair labour practice on the part of the employer”, and that such act by the employer is an offence punishable under section 291 of the Labour Act, which provides for a prison term which may extend to two years or with a fine of up to 10,000 Bangladeshi taka (BDT), or both. The Committee further noted the Government’s indication that the Tripartite Labour Law Review Committee (TLLRC) may consider adopting a more comprehensive prohibition, as requested by the Committee. Noting that no further information was provided by the Government in its present report, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to adopt a comprehensive prohibition that covers acts of financial control of trade unions or trade union leaders, as well as acts of interference in internal trade union affairs. The Committee hopes that as a first step, the TLLRC will include in its recommendations that a comprehensive prohibition covering acts of financial control of trade unions or trade union leaders, as well as acts of interference in internal trade union affairs should be adopted.

Article 4. Legal requirements for collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had referred to section 179(2) of the Labour Act, which provides that a trade union may only obtain registration if it represents 30 per cent of the workers in an establishment, as well as to section 202(15) of the Labour Act, which provides that if there is more than one trade union in an enterprise, the Director of Labour shall hold a secret ballot to determine the collective bargaining agent. The Committee recalled that the percentage requirements for registration of a trade union, and for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent set out in sections 179(2) and 202(15) of the Labour Act 2006, may impair in certain cases, in particular in respect of large enterprises, the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the percentage requirement in section 202(15) has been repealed and that it is the trade union that secures the highest number of votes that is declared as the collective bargaining agent. The Committee notes this information with interest and requests the Government to provide the text of the new section 202 of the Labour Act, 2006.

The Committee further noted that according to NCCWE, collective bargaining is limited as there is no legal provision for collective bargaining at the industry, sector or national levels. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indications that: (i) sections 202 and 203 of the Labour Act, 2006 directly concerns collective bargaining; (ii) the settlement of disputes through bipartite negotiations is done at the industry level and that similarly, different issues are settled through bipartite negotiation or through conciliation at the sector level, such as tea sector, shrimp sector, etc.; (iii) collective bargaining was also done at the national level through consultation with the Workers’ Federation but such practice no longer prevails; and (iv) there are currently 7,297 trade unions registered with the Department of Labour, 32 national federations, 112 industrial federations and 36 garments industries federations and a total of 11 collective bargaining agreements. The Committee requests the Government to amend sections 202 and 203 of the Labour Act, 2006 in order to provide clearly that collective bargaining is possible at the industry, sector and national levels. The Committee further requests the Government to provide statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded at the industry, sector and national levels respectively in its next report.

Promotion of collective bargaining in the EPZs. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the extent of collective bargaining in the EPZ sector, including statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded and the number of workers they cover. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that 302 enterprises are eligible for workers’ associations among 366 in operation and that workers’ associations referendums were held in 205 enterprises – or 67.88 per cent of the total number of eligible enterprises. However, no information was provided by the Government concerning the conclusion of collective agreements in the EPZs. The Committee notes that according to the ITUC, while elected Workers’ Welfare Societies (what substitutes for trade unions in the absence of a legal right to form one) in the EPZs have been established, employers have failed to take the next step and bargain collectively as required by the EWWSIRA Act 2010. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the extent of collective bargaining in the EPZ sector, including statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded since 2008, and the number of workers they cover.

The Committee further notes that according to the ITUC, there has been little progress on collective bargaining in the EPZs and that this is largely due to the BEPZA’s insistence that there is no room for collective bargaining on any working conditions above the minimum standards already established in the 2004 Act and BEPZA Instructions 1 and 2. The ITUC adds that this largely eviscerates the bargaining provisions of the EWWSIRA 2010 and leaves no room for collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that excluding wages, working hours, rest periods, leave and conditions of works from the field of collective bargaining is not in harmony with Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that this principle is applied in practice in the EPZs and to provide a copy of BEPZA Instructions 1 and 2.

Tripartite wages commissions in the public sector. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, it had requested the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). The Committee noted that the Government indicated in its report that this system does not prevent free and voluntary collective bargaining. Nevertheless, the Committee, while recognizing the singularity of the public sector which allows special modalities, considered that simple consultation with unions of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State does not meet the requirements of Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government once again reiterates its position. The Committee underlines that the Government has not referred to any collective agreement in the public sector. The Committee therefore once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State by means of simple consultation in government-appointed tripartite wages commissions, so as to favour free and voluntary negotiations between workers’ organizations and employers or their organizations. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or contemplated in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments on the application of the Convention made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2009. It further notes the comments submitted by the National Level Trade Union Federation of Workers (NCCWE), sent along with the Government’s report, stating that there is a weak implementation of labour law in general, and more particularly an unwillingness of employers to recognize trade unions and collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection of workers in export processing zones (EPZs) against anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that in its 2009 communication, the ITUC referred to numerous problems concerning the application of the Convention in the EPZ sector, particularly in the garment industry. The ITUC further stated that although the law provides for the establishment of an EPZ labour tribunal and an EPZ labour appellate, these two bodies had yet to be established, thus denying workers access to the judicial system for their grievances. The Committee had requested the Government to provide information in respect of these matters, including information on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination in the EPZ sector submitted to the competent authorities, as well as the outcomes of those complaints.

As concerns the 2009 ITUC comments on harassment, dismissal and violence against workers in the EPZ sector, the Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the Bangladesh EPZ Authority (BEPZA) is not aware of any harassment, dismissal and violence against workers in the EPZ sector.

As concerns the establishment of an EPZ Labour Tribunal and an EPZ Labour Appellate, the Committee had previously noted that according to the Government, EPZ workers could seek judicial redress in cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its present report that it has decided to allow the existing labour courts of the country (established under the Labour Act, 2006) to dispose of EPZs industrial disputes and settle the workers’ complaints, by incorporating necessary modifications in sections 56 and 59 of the EPZ Workers Welfare Association and Industrial Relation Act (EWAIR Act 2004) (the EPZ labour law). In this respect, the Committee further notes that the EWAIR Act 2004, as amended by the EWAIR Act 2010 is now in the process of being adopted by the Parliament. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to indicate any development in this regard in its next report and to provide a copy of the EWAIR Act 2010, once adopted.

Article 2. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference. The Committee had previously noted that the Labour Act 2006 did not contain a prohibition of acts of interference designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or their organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the object of placing them under the control of employers or their organizations, and had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to adopt such a prohibition. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that protective measures are laid down in the Labour Act, particularly in sections 195 and 196 concerning “unfair labour practice on the part of the employer”, and that such act by the employer is an offence punishable under section 291 of the Labour Act, which provides that such offence is punishable by imprisonment for a term which may extend two years or with a fine of up to 10,000 Taka, or both. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that the Tripartite Labour Law Review Committee (TLLRC) may consider adopting a more comprehensive prohibition, as requested by the Committee. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to adopt a comprehensive prohibition that covers acts of financial control of trade unions or trade union leaders, as well as acts of interference in internal trade union affairs. The Committee hopes that as a first step, the TLLRC will include in its recommendations that a comprehensive prohibition covering acts of financial control of trade unions or trade union leaders, as well as acts of interference in internal trade union affairs should be adopted.

Article 4. Legal requirements for collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had referred to section 179(2) of the Labour Act, which provides that a trade union may only obtain registration if it represents 30 per cent of the workers in an establishment, as well as to section 202(15) of the Labour Act, which provides that if there is more than one trade union in an enterprise, the Director of Labour shall hold a secret ballot to determine the collective bargaining agent. The Committee notes that according to the Government, there is no percentage requirement for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent. However, the Committee notes that section 202(15)(e) of the Labour Act provides that the trade-union that secures the highest votes is declared as the collective bargaining agent, providing that no trade union shall be declared to be the collective bargaining agent unless it obtains the votes of at least one third of the total workers employed in the establishment. The Committee recalls once again that the percentage requirements for registration of a trade union, and for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent set out in sections 179(2) and 202(15) of the Labour Act 2006, may impair in certain cases, in particular in respect of large enterprises, the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining. The Committee recalls that where, under a system for nominating an exclusive bargaining agent, there is no union representing the required percentage to be so designated, collective bargaining rights should be granted to all unions in this unit, at least on behalf of their own members (see the General Survey, paragraph 241). In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report information on the measures taken or contemplated so as to ensure that, where no union represents one third of the employees in a bargaining unit, collective bargaining rights are granted to all unions in the unit, at least on behalf of their own members.

The Committee further notes that according to NCCWE, collective bargaining is limited as there is no legal provision for collective bargaining at the industry, sector or at national levels. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations in this regard.

Promotion of collective bargaining in the EPZs. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the extent of collective bargaining in the EPZ sector, including statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded and the number of workers they cover. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that 274 enterprises are eligible for workers’ associations among 325 in operation and that workers’ associations referendums were held in 198 enterprises – or 72.3 per cent of the total number of eligible enterprises. However, no additional information was provided by the Government concerning the conclusion of collective agreements. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the extent of collective bargaining in the EPZ sector, including statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded since 2008, and the number of workers they cover.

Tripartite wages commissions in the public sector. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments, it had requested the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that this system does not prevent free and voluntary collective bargaining. Nevertheless, the Committee, while recognizing the singularity of the public sector which allows special modalities, considers that simple consultation with unions of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State do not meet the requirements of Article 4 of the Convention. Therefore, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions, so as to favour free and voluntary negotiations between workers’ organizations and employers or their organizations. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or contemplated in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments on the application of the Convention made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2008. It further notes the latest comments submitted by the ITUC in a communication dated 26 August 2009.

Article 1 of the Convention. Protection of workers in export processing zones (EPZs) against anti-union discrimination. Previously the Committee had taken note of the ITUC’s comments made in 2007 that there were numerous instances of dismissals, suspensions and harassment of trade unionists in EPZs, in particular in the garment and textile industries, and that the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) had failed to protect trade unionists, thus significantly undermining the extension of associational rights to workers in EPZs. The Committee had requested the Government to provide its observations on the ITUC’s comments and to furnish statistical information on the number of anti-union discrimination complaints submitted to the competent authorities and their outcomes since November 2006, when workers’ associations were authorized in the EPZs, as well as the number of collective agreements concluded in EPZ enterprises and their coverage. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that from August to December 2006, 16 trade unions in different garment industries were registered.

As concerns protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee notes that the Government, in its reply to the ITUC’s 2008 comments, indicates that the BEPZA has taken steps to protect the interests of workers and issued instructions pertaining to labour administration in the zones. Furthermore, industrial relations departments have been established in each EPZ; the industrial relations departments entertain worker grievances and complaints and engage in supervision and monitoring so as to maintain a harmonious industrial relations environment in the EPZs. While noting this information, the Committee notes that in its 2009 communication the ITUC refers once again to numerous instances of harassment, dismissal and violence against workers in the EPZ sector, particularly in the garment industry. The ITUC further states that although the law provides for the establishment of an EPZ Labour Tribunal and an EPZ Labour Appellate, these two bodies had yet to be established – thus denying workers access to the judicial system for their grievances.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that as required by the EPZ Workers’ Association and Industrial Relations Act, two conciliators and panels of arbitrators have been appointed to facilitate dispute resolution among the workers and employers. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that EPZ workers can also seek judicial redress in cases of anti-union discrimination. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in respect of these matters, including information on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination in the EPZ sector submitted to the competent authorities, as well as the outcomes of those complaints.

The Committee notes the ITUC’s indication that at the start of 2008 workers voted to establish trade unions in 69 EPZ enterprises, and that pursuant to a decision of the BEPZA, 124 more EPZ enterprises must hold trade union elections by 2010. The Committee further notes that the Government, in its reply to the ITUC’s 2008 comments, states that referendums and elections on workers’ associations had been completed in 188 out of a total of 250 eligible EPZ enterprises – or 75.2 per cent of the total number of eligible enterprises. Noting these developments, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the extent of collective bargaining in the EPZ sector, including statistics on the number of collective agreements concluded and the number of workers they cover.

Article 2. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference. The Committee had previously noted that the Labour Act 2006 did not contain a prohibition of acts of interference designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or their organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means with the object of placing them under the control of employers or their organizations, and had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken to adopt such a prohibition. The Committee notes that the Government refers to legal provisions which would confer partial protection against acts of interference. These provisions state that no employer (or anyone acting on his or her behalf) shall: induce any person to refrain from becoming, or to cease to be a member or officer of a trade union, by conferring or offering to confer any advantage on, or by procuring or offering to procure any advantage for such person or any other person; compel any officer of the collective bargaining agent to sign a memorandum of settlement or arrive at a settlement by using intimidation, coercion, pressure, threat, confinement to a place, physical injury, disconnection of water, power and telephone facilities and such other methods; or interfere with, or in any way influence, ballots. The Committee requests the Government to indicate which law contains the abovementioned provisions, as well as to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to adopt a comprehensive prohibition that: (1) covers acts of financial control of trade unions or trade union leaders, as well as acts of interference in internal trade union affairs; and (2) is coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against all acts of interference in the establishment and functioning of workers’ organizations by employers and vice versa.

Article 4. Legal requirements to collective bargaining. In its previous comment, the Committee had referred to section 179(2) of the Labour Act, which provides that a trade union may only obtain registration if it represents 30 per cent of the workers in an establishment, as well as to section 202(15) of the Labour Act, which provides that if there is more than one trade union in an enterprise, no trade union shall be declared to be the collective bargaining agent unless it obtains the votes of at least one third of the employees in a secret ballot. The Committee regrets that the Government provides no information respecting this matter. Noting once again that the percentage requirements for registration of a trade union and for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent set out in sections 179(2) and 202(15) of the Labour Act 2006 may impair the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report any measures taken or contemplated so as to lower these requirements.

Tripartite wages commissions in the public sector. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it had requested the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). The Committee notes with regret that, as with the other legislative matters previously raised, the Government fails to provide information in this regard. In these circumstances, the Committee once again recalls that Article 4 relates to free and voluntary negotiations between employers or their organizations and workers’ organizations with a view to the regulation of wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of collective agreements, including with regard to public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or contemplated to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions, so as to favour free and voluntary negotiations between workers’ organizations and employers or their organizations, who should be able to appoint freely their negotiating representatives.

Finally, noting the Government’s statement that it is fully committed to complying with the ILO’s Conventions, the Committee requests the Government to adopt all the measures requested without delay.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report as well as its reply to the comments made by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), now the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), in 2006.

The Committee further notes the entry into force of the Labour Act 2006, which replaced the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 (IRO). It also notes with regret however, that the new law does not appear to contain any significant improvement in relation to the Committee’s previous comments.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. Protection of workers in export processing zones (EPZs) against anti‑union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee, recalling the request by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2006 for full information on the situation of workers in EPZs who, for more than 20 years, have not enjoyed the rights set out in the Convention, requested the Government to take all necessary measures to eliminate the obstacles to the exercise of trade union rights in law and in practice in EPZs and to provide statistics on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination and of collective agreements concluded in EPZs. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that nowadays the people of Bangladesh enjoy the highest freedom to form associations and engage in collective bargaining as the new Labour Act of 2006 enables workers without distinction whatsoever, to form trade unions and therefore, to raise industrial disputes and to go to the court for redress of termination for trade union activities (sections 182 and 176); moreover, through the EPZ Workers’ Association and Industrial Relations Act 2004, the Government is taking all measures to keep a sound industrial situation in EPZs.

The Committee notes the latest comments received from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), in a communication dated 27 August 2007, with regard to serious violations of Article 1 of the Convention in EPZs in practice, in particular in the garment and textile industries. The ITUC refers to numerous instances of anti-union discrimination against workers who attempted to establish workers’ associations in the EPZs since 1 November 2006 when the establishment of such associations was authorized on the basis of the EPZ Worker Association and Industrial Relations Act of 2004; in particular, the ITUC refers to dismissals and suspensions of Worker Representation and Welfare Committee (WRWC) leaders, as well as systematic harassment, intimidation and violence against such leaders and members by employers with total impunity. According to the ITUC, the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) has failed to protect trade unionists, thus significantly undermining the extension of associational rights to workers in EPZs. The Committee requests the Government to send its comments on the latest observations of the ITUC dated 27 August 2007. Noting moreover that the Government has not provided the previously requested data, the Committee requests the Government to furnish statistical information on the number of anti-union discrimination complaints submitted to the competent authorities since November 2006 when workers’ associations were authorized in the EPZs, and the outcome of such complaints, as well as the number of collective agreements concluded in EPZ enterprises and their coverage.

2. Article 2. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference. The Committee has been raising for a number of years the need to amend the law so as to ensure sufficient protection against acts of interference. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that acts of interference envisaged in Article 2 of the Convention are rare in Bangladesh and workers’ organizations have every right to complain in this regard. Acts of interference constitute an unfair labour practice and a punishable offence under sections 195 and 196 of the Labour Act, 2006. The Committee notes that section 195 of the Labour Act 2006, which replaced the IRO, introduces certain improvements in relation to the previous legislation in that it does not explicitly authorize an employer to require that a person appointed to managerial posts cease to be a member or officer of a trade union and introduces as an unfair labour practice, any transfer of the president, general secretary, organizing secretary or treasurer of any registered trade union without their consent. However, this provision still does not contain a prohibition of acts of interference designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or their organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing them under the control of employers or their organizations. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated so as to adopt a specific prohibition, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, against acts of interference in the establishment and functioning of workers’ organizations by employers and vice versa.

3. Article 4. Legal requirements to collective bargaining. The Committee observes that section 202 of the Labour Act 2006, contains a slight amendment in relation to the previous section 22 of the IRO to the effect that if there is only one trade union in an establishment, that trade union shall be deemed to be the collective bargaining agent for the establishment without explicitly requiring any longer that the trade union in question represent at least one-third of the workers in the establishment. The Committee also notes, however, that the Labour Act maintains the old section 7(2) of the IRO (now section 179(2) of the Labour Act to which the Government refers in its report) to the effect that a trade union may only obtain registration if it represents 30 per cent of the workers in an establishment. Moreover, section 202(15) of the Labour Act reiterates the old provision of section 22(15) IRO to the effect that if there is more than one trade union in an enterprise, no trade union shall be declared to be the collective bargaining agent unless it obtains the votes of at least one-third of the employees in a secret ballot. Noting once again that the percentage requirements set for registration of a trade union and for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent (sections 179(2) and 202(15) of the Labour Act 2006) may impair the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate in its next report any measures taken or contemplated so as to lower these requirements.

4. Tripartite wages commissions in the public sector. The Committee recalls from its previous comments that it has requested the Government to take the necessary legislative or other measures to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). The Committee notes from the ICFTU’s comments that, being deprived of the right to organize, workers in the public sector and state enterprises with the exception of railway, postal and telecommunication services cannot exercise the right to collective bargaining through trade unions (an issue also raised in relation to the right to organize under Convention No. 87). The Committee notes from the Government’s report that tripartite commissions in which all the social partners, including representatives of workers, participate, were established to ensure uniform wages in the state-owned enterprises. The Committee once again recalls that Article 4 of the Convention relates to free and voluntary negotiations between employers or their organizations and workers’ organizations with a view to the regulation of wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of collective agreements, including with regard to public servants not engaged in the administration of the State. It therefore once again requests the Government to indicate any measures taken or contemplated to end the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment of public servants not engaged in the administration of the State by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions, so as to favour free and voluntary negotiations between workers’ organizations and employers or their organizations, who should be able to appoint freely their negotiating representatives.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report. It notes that it does not contain all the information requested, despite the fact that the Conference Committee, after noting several discrepancies between the Convention and national law, had requested the Government, in June 2006, to send information on an urgent basis in its next report concerning workers in export processing zones (EPZs) who, for more than 20 years, have not enjoyed the rights set out in the Convention.

The Committee takes note of the discussion which took place at the Conference Committee in 2006, as well as the observations received from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), in a communication dated 12 July 2006. The latter, while mainly concerning legislative issues raised in the previous observations of the Committee, underlines serious problems regarding the application of the provisions of the Convention in practice, in particular in the garment and textile industries, including harassment and anti-union discrimination. Furthermore, the Committee notes the Government’s reply of 18 January 2006 to the comments made by the ICFTU on 31 August 2005. The Committee notes that the Government limits itself to referring to the legal provisions prohibiting harassment and acts of anti-union discrimination and establishing imprisonment or fines in cases of infringement; according to the Government, the application of the Convention is not barred in the garment and ship-recycling industries. The Committee requests the Government to send its additional comments regarding the ICFTU’s observations contained in its communication dated 12 July 2006, indicating also the complaints submitted to the authorities in the last two years for anti-union practices.

1. Trade union rights in export processing zones (EPZs). In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the 2005 comments of the ICFTU regarding restrictions on the right to organize in the EPZs. In particular, the ICFTU stated that the new legislation provides that in order to form an association entitled to elect representatives who have the power to negotiate and sign collective agreements in any industrial unit, at least 30 per cent of the eligible workers of that unit must make an application to this effect. It will also have to hold a referendum to ascertain support for the association in which over 50 per cent of the total workforce must participate and over 50 per cent of the votes cast must be in favour of the establishment of a workers’ association. The Committee notes the Government response to these comments stating that workers’ associations are allowed to form under the EPZ Worker Association and Industrial Relations Act of 2004. The Committee recalls however the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2327 (see 337th Report, paragraphs 183-213) relating to important restrictions of the trade union rights of workers in the EPZ Workers’ Association and Industrial Relations Act 2004 and observes that it requested the Government to modify this Act. The Committee also observes that the ICFTU has pointed out that workers made numerous reports of employer interference or irregularities in elections for workers’ committees overseen by the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA), and that discrimination against leaders of Active Worker Representation and Welfare Committees (WRWCs) was reported, and a significant number of these leaders and activist members were unfairly terminated with permission from the BEPZA. The Committee recalls that the Conference Committee had urged the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary measures to ensure that these workers benefited in full from the rights laid down in the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to eliminate the obstacles to the exercise of trade union rights in law and in practice in EPZs. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of all measures taken in this regard, and to submit statistics on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination as well as the number of collective agreements concluded in EPZs.

2. Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference. The Committee notes with regret that the Government repeats, at the Conference Committee, in its last report and in its comments concerning the ICFTU’s communication, its previous statement about this issue and, particularly, that sufficient protection is ensured under the general provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 (IRO), relating to trade union rights and freedom of association. The Government adds that protection against interference will be strengthened in the new Labour Code which has already been passed by the Parliament. The Committee recalled that Article 2 of the Convention requires the prohibition of acts of interference by organizations of workers and employers (or their agents) in each other’s affairs, designed in particular to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee once again requests the Government to adopt specific measures, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, against acts of interference and to keep it informed in this respect.

3. Legal requirements to collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to lower the percentage requirement, which is 30 per cent, for registration of a trade union and the requirement to have one-third of employees as its members in order to be able to negotiate at the enterprise level (see sections 7(2) and 22 of the IRO). The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous statement to the effect that these requirements are justified in order to limit the multiplicity of trade unions, that they strengthen trade unions, and that they are unanimously agreed upon by the social partners. The Committee was bound to point out once again that these requirements may impair and make difficult the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining and that where, under a system for nominating an exclusive bargaining agent, there is no union representing the required percentage to be so designated, collective bargaining rights should be granted to the existing unions, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee noted the Government’s statement, reiterated in the Government’s report, according to which the existing shortcomings (if any) will be removed through the provisions laid down in the future labour code. The Committee notes however with regret that, at the Conference Committee, the Government representative of Bangladesh maintained the position that the IRO 30 per cent requirement does not contravene the intent of the provisions of the Convention or the rights of workers to form trade unions as this requirement’s aim is to ensure broader and more representative workers’ bodies, to maintain the unity of the workers in the establishment and to promote effective representation of the workers. The Committee requests the Government to lower the percentage requirements set for registration of a trade union and for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent and to keep it informed in this respect.

4. Practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to amend the legislation and to modify the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions. The Committee notes the statement of the Government according to which tripartism is the most reasonable way of determining wages, particularly in the less viable industries, as otherwise there will be chaos for the Government as employer; the Committee notes that in its report, the Government reiterates that the collective bargaining agent at the enterprise or sector level has the right to bargain with their employer (and this usually happens in practice) for the effective implementation of matters settled by the wages commission; the present system safeguards the interests of workers in less viable industries and achieves a fair and equitable wage structure. The Committee once again recalls that, in line with the Convention, free and voluntary collective bargaining should be conducted between directly interested workers’ organizations and employers or their organizations, which should be able to appoint freely their negotiating representatives. The Committee requests once again the Government to amend the legislation and to modify the present practice in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

5. Workers excluded from collective bargaining. The Committee notes from the ICFTU’s comments that, being deprived of the right to organize, workers in the public sector and state enterprises with the exception of railway, postal and telecommunication services cannot exercise the right to collective bargaining through trade unions.

6. The Committee notes that it has been commenting for a number of years on the need to finalize the draft Labour Code. The Committee notes that the Government stated once again at the Conference Committee and in its comments to the ICFTU’s observations, that the suggestions received from different stakeholders on the draft Labour Code have been reviewed by a tripartite committee, and that the Code is finalized. The Committee notes that in its report, the Government indicates that the Labour Code has recently been passed by the Parliament and that it believes that the Committee’s observations are duly reflected in the legislation. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that the above comments are duly taken into consideration and hopes that they have been taken into account in the draft Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this respect. The Committee recalls that the technical assistance of the Office is at the Government’s disposal.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee further notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), which concern legislative issues raised in its previous observation. The ICFTU also underlines several problems regarding the application of the Convention in the garment and ship recycling industries, dismissals of trade union officers and members and harassment of workers suspected of carrying out trade union activities. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations thereon.

Trade union rights in export processing zones (EPZs). The Committee notes the comments of the ICFTU regarding restrictions on the right to organize in the EPZs. In particular, the ICFTU states that the new legislation provides that in order to form an association entitled to elect representatives who have the power to negotiate and sign collective agreements in any industrial unit, at least 30 per cent of the eligible workers of that unit must make an application to this effect. It will also have to hold a referendum to ascertain support for the association in which over 50 per cent of the total workforce must participate and over 50 per cent of the votes cast must be in favour of the establishment of a workers’ association. The Committee also notes the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on Freedom of Association in Case No. 2327 (see 337th Report, paragraphs 183-213) relating to the restrictions of the trade union rights of workers in EPZs. The Committee notes the EPZ Workers’ Association and Industrial Relations Act 2006 and observes that the Committee on Freedom of Association requested the Government to modify this Act. The Committee requests the Government to take all necessary measures to eliminate the obstacles to the exercise of trade union rights in law and in practice in EPZs. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of all measures taken in this regard, and to submit statistics on the number of complaints of anti-union discrimination as well as the number of collective agreements concluded in EPZs.

Lack of legislative protection against acts of interference. The Committee notes with regret that the Government repeats its previous statement about this issue and, particularly, that sufficient protection is ensured under the general provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969, relating to trade union rights and freedom of association. The Committee recalls that Article 2 of the Convention requires the prohibition of "acts of interference" by organizations of workers and employers (or their agents) in each other’s affairs, designed in particular to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee once again requests the Government to adopt specific measures, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, against acts of interference and to keep it informed in this respect.

Legal requirements to collective bargaining. In its previous observation, the Committee had asked the Government to lower the percentage requirement, which is 30 per cent, for registration of a trade union and the requirement to have one-third of employees as its members in order to be able to negotiate at the enterprise level (see sections 7(2) and 22 of the IRO). The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous statement to the effect that these requirements are justified in order to limit the multiplicity of trade unions and that they are not opposed by the social partners. The Committee is bound to point out once again that these requirements may impair and make difficult the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining and that where, under a system for nominating an exclusive bargaining agent, there is no union representing the required percentage to be so designated, collective bargaining rights should be granted to the existing unions, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee notes the Government’s statement according to which the existing shortcoming (if any) will be removed through the provisions laid down in the future labour code. The Committee requests the Government to lower the percentage requirements set for registration of a trade union and for the recognition of a collective bargaining agent and to keep it informed in this respect.

Practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). In its previous observation, the Committee had requested the Government to amend the legislation and to modify the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions. The Committee notes the statement of the Government according to which tripartism is the most reasonable way of determining wages as otherwise there will be chaos for the Government as employer; the collective bargaining agent at the enterprise or sector level has the right to bargain with their employer (and this usually happens in practice) for the effective implementation of matters settled by the wages commission; the present system safeguards the interests of workers in less viable industries and achieves a fair and equitable wage structure. The Committee once again recalls that, in line with the Convention, free and voluntary collective bargaining should be conducted between directly interested workers’ organizations and employers or their organizations, which should be able to appoint freely their negotiating representatives. The Committee requests once again the Government to amend the legislation and to modify the present practice in order to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

The Committee notes that it has been commenting for a number of years on the need to finalize the draft Labour Code. The Committee notes that the Government states once again that the suggestions received from different stakeholders on the draft Labour Code are reviewed by a tripartite committee, and that the Code is now almost at the final stage. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that the above comments are duly taken into consideration and reflected in the legislation in the near future. The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report of any progress made in this respect.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 95th Session and to reply in detail to the present comments in 2006.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. The Committee notes the discussions in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2004. The Committee further notes the comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) raising questions about the application of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to send its observations thereon in its next report.

1. Protection of workers’ and employers’ organizations against acts of interference by each other. The Committee notes that the Government merely repeats its previous statement and refers to sections 15, 16, 47, 47A, 47B, 48, 53 and 63 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969. The Committee once again points out that these sections concern the protection of workers against "acts of anti-union discrimination" and once again recalls that Article 2 of the Convention requires the prohibition of "acts of interference" by organizations of workers and employers (or their agents) in each other’s affairs, designed in particular to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to adopt specific measures, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, against acts of interference, and keep it informed in this respect.

2. Trade union rights in export processing zones (EPZs). In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to transmit the Declaration of 31 January 2001 (SRO No. 24, Law/2001) concerning the right of association in EPZs. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that a new Act entitled "The EPZs Workers’ Association and the Industrial Relation Act 2004" has been enacted by the Parliament and published in the Bangladesh Gazette on 18 July 2004. The Committee requests the Government to provide the copy of this text.

3. Thirty per cent requirement for registration of a trade union and the requirement to have one-third of employees as its members in order to be able to negotiate at the enterprise level (sections 7(2) and 22 of the IRO). The Committee notes that the Government reiterates its previous statement to the effect that these requirements are justified in the national socio-political and economic context and are not opposed by social partners. The Government explains that the aim of section 7(2) is to "avoid mushroom growth of trade union and to maintain unity of workers in an establishment". The Committee is bound to point out once again that these requirements may impair and make difficult the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining and that where, under a system for nominating an exclusive bargaining agent, there is no union representing the required percentage to be so designated, collective bargaining rights should be granted to the existing unions, at least on behalf of their own members. It therefore once again requests the Government to lower the percentage requirements set for registration of a trade union and recognition of a collective bargaining agent and to keep it informed in this respect.

4. Practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). The Committee notes the statement of the Government in this respect. The Industrial Workers’ Wages and Productivity Commission (IWWPC) was formed by the Government under the principle of tripartism with equal numbers of members from the Government, the employers and the workers. The recommendations of the IWWPC cover only the rates of wages and other conditions of employment through a government-appointed wages commission on the interests of workers. Various other issues concerning workers are not covered by the recommendations of the IWWPC. For those issues, a collective bargaining agent (CBA) enjoys the right of bargaining with the stakeholders. The CBAs in the public sector enterprises have regularly exercised the right to bargain in connection with the proper implementation of the recommendations of the Commission. Voluntary bargaining is thus not at all restricted in the pubic sector enterprises. The Committee once again recalls that, in line with the Convention, free and voluntary collective bargaining should be conducted between the directly interested workers’ organization and employers or their organizations, which should be able to appoint freely their negotiating representatives. It therefore once again requests the Government to amend its legislation and to modify the present practice so as to bring them into conformity with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.

5. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it is taking the necessary action in order to submit the draft Labour Code to the Parliament. The Government states that the workers’ side has submitted some new proposals and that these points need thorough examination. At present, the tripartite Labour Code Review Committee headed by the Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and Employment and consisting of ten members is examining the new proposals received from different agencies. The Committee notes that the Government considers that in the absence of a new Labour Code, the existing laws reasonably protect the rights of workers, but that it nevertheless desires to finalize the Labour Code as soon as possible. In this respect, the Committee, once again, strongly encourages the Government to ensure that the above comments are duly taken into consideration and reflected in the future legislation. The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report of any progress made in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned the following points:

-  lack of legislative protection against acts of interference (Article 2 of the Convention);

-  rights guaranteed for workers in export processing zones (EPZs). In this connection, the Committee had noted with interest that the Government had issued on 31 January 2001 a declaration (SRO No. 24, Law/2001) that would allow workers in EPZs the right of association and other facilities, as from 1 January 2004 and had requested the Government to provide the text of that declaration;

-  obstacles to voluntary bargaining in the private sector (sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO)). In this connection, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary steps to remove the requirements: (a) in section 7(2) that, in order to be registered under the IRO, a trade union must have a membership of at least 30 per cent of the total number of workers in the establishment or group of establishments in which it was formed; and (b) in sections 22 and 22A of the IRO that only unions which were registered in accordance with section 7 may become collective bargaining agents;

-  restrictions on voluntary bargaining in the public sector (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974), in particular through the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of government-appointed wages commissions.

1. Protection of workers’ and employers’ organizations against acts of interference by each other (or their agents). The Committee notes that the Government refers to sections 15, 16 and 53 of the IRO concerning the protection of workers against "acts of anti-union discrimination". The Committee recalls, however, that Article 2 of the Convention requires the prohibition of "acts of interference" by organizations of workers and employers (or their agents) in each other’s affairs, designed in particular to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers or employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee therefore requests the Government to adopt specific measures, coupled with effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, against acts of interference, and keep it informed in this respect.

2. Trade union rights in EPZs. The Committee regrets that the Government has not sent the declaration of 31 January 2001 (SRO No. 24, Law/2001) concerning the right of association in EPZs and requests it to provide the text thereof.

3. Thirty per cent requirement for registration of a trade union and the requirement to have one-third of employees as its members in order to be able to negotiate at the enterprise level (sections 7(2) and 22 of the IRO). While noting that the Government considers that these requirements are justified in the national socio-political and economic context and are not opposed by workers, the Committee points out that these requirements may impair and make difficult the development of free and voluntary collective bargaining. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to lower the percentage requirements set for registration of a trade union and collective bargaining (at least on behalf of its own members) and to keep it informed in this respect.

The Committee further recalls that where, under a system for nominating an exclusive bargaining agent, there is no union representing the required percentage to be so designated, collective bargaining rights should be granted to the existing unions, at least on behalf of their own members. The Committee therefore requests the Government to amend section 22 so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention and keep it informed in this respect.

4. Practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment in the public sector by means of government-appointed tripartite wages commissions (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974). While noting that the Government indicates that the present tripartite system is facilitative and gainful and that the collective bargaining agents enjoy the right to bargain with their stakeholders so that voluntary bargaining is not restricted, the Committee recalls that, in line with the Convention, free and voluntary collective bargaining should be conducted between the directly interested workers’ organization and an employer or an employers’ organization, which should be able to appoint freely their negotiating representatives. It therefore once again requests the Government to amend its legislation and to modify the present practice so as to bring them into conformity with the Convention, and to keep it informed in this respect.

5. The Committee further notes that the Government once again indicates that the draft Labour Code, submitted by the National Labour Commission, had raised several objections from various quarters (workers, employers and other legal bodies) and was reviewed by a committee of legal experts which, in turn, has submitted its views and report, and that the Government is taking active steps to have it passed by Parliament. The Committee, once again, strongly encourages the Government to ensure that the above comments are duly taken into consideration and reflected in the future legislation. The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report of any progress made in this respect.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report.

The Committee’s previous comments referred to discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention on the following points:

-  obstacles to voluntary bargaining in the private sector (sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO)). The Committee had pointed out that collective bargaining was not developed in small establishments because sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the IRO appeared to inhibit the establishment of "sectoral" or "industry" unions. It had therefore requested the Government to take the necessary steps to remove the requirements: (a) in section 7(2) that, in order to be registered under the IRO, a trade union must have a membership of at least 30 per cent of the total number of workers in the establishment or group of establishments in which it was formed; and (b) in sections 22 and 22A of the IRO that only unions which were registered in accordance with section 7 may become collective bargaining agents;

-  restrictions on voluntary bargaining in the public sector (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974), in particular through the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of government-appointed wages commissions;

-  lack of legislative protection against acts of interference (Article 2 of the Convention);

-  denial of the rights guaranteed by Article 1 (Protection against anti-union discrimination), Article 2 (Protection against acts of interference), and Article 4 (Right to bargain collectively) of the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 11A of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act, 1980).

The Committee notes with interest that the Government has issued on 31 January 2001 a declaration (SRO No. 24, Law/2001) that will allow workers in EPZs the right of association and other facilities, as from 1 January 2004. The Committee requests the Government to provide the text of that declaration and to keep it informed of progress made in this respect, hopefully before 1 January 2004.

As regards the other issues, the Committee is bound to note that the Government, once again, repeats more or less the same arguments as raised in previous reports, to deny the existence of the above violations or, alternatively to justify them. The Committee once again brings the Government’s attention to the fact that these discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention constitute serious violations of the Convention, a point which the Committee has commented on in detail for several years.

The Committee further notes that the draft Labour Code, submitted by the National Labour Commission and apparently raised several objections from various quarters (workers, employers and other legal bodies), was reviewed by a committee of legal experts which, in turn, has submitted its views and report, and that the Government is taking active steps to have it passed by Parliament. The Committee, once again, strongly encourages the Government to ensure that the above comments are duly taken into consideration, so that they are reflected in the text as adopted by Parliament and, to that end, invites it once again to consider requesting ILO technical assistance. The Committee requests the Government to inform it in its next report of any progress made in this respect.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report.

The Committee’s previous comments referred to discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention on the following points:

-  obstacles to voluntary bargaining in the private sector (sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO)). The Committee had pointed out that collective bargaining is not developed in small establishments because sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the IRO appear to inhibit the establishment of "sectoral" or "industry" unions; it had therefore requested the Government to take the necessary steps to remove the requirements: (a) in section 7(2) that, in order to be registered under the IRO, a trade union must have a membership of at least 30 per cent of the total number of workers in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed; and (b) in sections 22 and 22A of the IRO that only unions which are registered in accordance with section 7 may become collective bargaining agents;

-  restrictions on voluntary bargaining in the public sector (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974), in particular through the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of government-appointed wages commissions;

-  lack of legislative protection against acts of interference guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention;

-  denial of the rights guaranteed by Article 1 (Protection against anti-union discrimination, Article 2 (Protection against acts of interference), and Article 4 (Right to bargain collectively)of the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 11A of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act, 1980).

The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government repeats more or less the same arguments that it raised in previous reports to deny the existence of the above violations or, alternatively, to justify them.

The Committee once again brings to the Government’s attention that the above discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention constitute serious violations of the Convention, a point which the Committee has commented on in detail for several years. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Tripartite Review Committee constituted by the Government is still examining the draft Labour Code submitted by the National Labour Law Commission. In its previous observations, the Committee had observed that the recommendations of the National Labour Law Commission, which was tripartite in nature and included eminent legal experts, dealt with all the points previously raised by the Committee. The Committee strongly encourages the Government to ensure that the Tripartite Review Committee will, during its examination of the draft Labour Code, take into consideration the Committee’s previous detailed comments on discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any progress made in the adoption of the draft Labour Code in its next report and invites it to consider ILO technical assistance.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report.

The Committee's previous comments referred to discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention on the following points:

-- obstacles to voluntary bargaining in the private sector (sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO)). The Committee had pointed out that collective bargaining is not developed in small establishments because sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the IRO appear to inhibit the establishment of "sectoral" or "industry" unions; it therefore had requested the Government to take the necessary steps to remove the requirement: (a) in section 7(2) that, in order to be registered under the IRO, a trade union must have a membership of at least 30 per cent of the total number of workers in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed; and (b) in sections 22 and 22A of the IRO that only unions which are registered in accordance with section 7 may become collective bargaining agents;

-- restrictions on voluntary bargaining in the public sector (section 3 of Act No. X of 1974), in particular through the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of government-appointed Wages Commissions;

-- lack of legislative protection against acts of interference guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention;

-- denial of the rights guaranteed by Articles 1 (protection against anti-union discrimination), 2 (protection against acts of interference), and 4 (right to bargain collectively) of the Convention for workers in export processing zones (section 11A of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act, 1980).

The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government repeats more or less the same arguments that it raised in previous reports to deny the existence of the above violations or, alternatively, to justify them.

The Committee would once again remind the Government that the above discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention, which the Committee has commented on in detail for several years, constitute serious violations of the Convention, which was ratified in 1972. The Committee notes the Government's statement that it is re-examining the draft Labour Code submitted by the National Labour Law Commission. In its most recent observation, the Committee had noted that the recommendations of the National Labour Law Commission, which was tripartite in nature and included eminent legal experts, dealt with all the points previously raised by the Committee. In re-examining the draft Labour Code, the Committee would strongly encourage the Government to take into consideration the Committee's previous detailed comments on discrepancies between national legislation and the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of any progress made in the preparation of this draft Labour Code in its next report and invites it to consider technical assistance from the ILO.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report, as well as the statement made by the Government representative at the Conference Committee in June 1994 and the discussion which took place thereafter.

Voluntary bargaining in the private sector

The Committee had observed previously that section 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO), read with sections 22 and 22A, could serve to impair the development of effective bargaining in the small business sector by inhibiting the development of industry or sectoral unions.

In response to the Committee's request the previous year for information on the measures taken in practice to encourage and promote collective bargaining, particularly in the small business sector, the Government indicates that in 1993 for instance, 209 collective bargaining agreements were concluded. However, in the small business sector where collective bargaining is not adequately developed, the Minimum Wages Board (MWB) determines minimum wages and other fringe benefits. Thus, minimum wages have been fixed in 38 industries, and those in other small businesses are in the process of being revised.

The Committee would once again point out, however, that collective bargaining is not developed in small establishments because sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the IRO, 1969, appear to inhibit the establishment of "sectoral" or "industry" unions. It therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to remove the requirement: (a) in section 7(2) that, in order to be registered under the IRO, a trade union must have a membership of at least 30 per cent of the total number of workers in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed; and (b) in sections 22 and 22A of the IRO that only unions which are registered in accordance with section 7 may become collective bargaining agents.

Voluntary bargaining in the public sector

For some years the Committee has been expressing its concern in relation to the development of collective bargaining in the public sector, and in particular the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of government-appointed Wages Commissions.

In its report, the Government replies that although wages and fringe benefits are determined by wages and pay Commissions, the management of public and semi-public enterprises do negotiate with plant-level collective bargaining agents and their federations on problems and anomalies arising from the implementation of the recommendations of the various commissions. The Government, on a higher level, also negotiates informally with trade union federations; hence collective bargaining principles are very much respected in Bangladesh.

In the light of this reply, the Committee can only reiterate that conformity with Article 4 of the Convention requires that the Government take steps to encourage and promote the development and utilization of machinery for the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements; in this respect, it draws the Government's attention to paragraphs 244 to 248 and 261 to 265 of its 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining.

Protection against interference

While sections 15 and 16 of the IRO of 1969 are designed to provide protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee had asked the Government to review its legislation with a view to adopting an appropriate measure of protection against "acts of interference" for purposes of Article 2 of the Convention, which seek to ensure that no employer or employee organizations may support any organization of workers by financial or other means with a view to placing such organization under the control of the employer organization.

The Government indicates that the tripartite National Labour Law Commission set up in 1992 has recommended that these provisions be amended for wider coverage; these recommendations are under the active consideration of the Government.

The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in respect of such eventual amendments.

Denial of right to engage in collective bargaining for workers in export processing zones

The Committee had requested the Government to take steps to amend section 11A of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act 1980, since it denied workers in such zones (EPZs) the rights guaranteed by Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention.

The Government, in its report, repeats its argument that the said provision is intended to promote investment and generate employment opportunities and to improve the balance of payment position with added foreign exchange earnings needed for the growth of the economy. It adds that EPZs are now an issue not only in Bangladesh but also in an increasing number of countries in Asia, and are therefore a reality which cannot be ignored.

While aware that reasons of national economic development are behind the setting up of these EPZs, the Committee would once again stress that a blanket denial to a whole category of workers of the protections and rights defined in the Convention constitute a violation of the Convention. It also draws the Government's attention to the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, adopted by the ILO Governing Body in 1977, which states in paragraph 45 that "where governments of host countries offer special incentives to attract foreign investment, these incentives should not include any limitation of the workers' freedom of association or the right to organize and bargain collectively". The Committee, therefore, would request the Government to take steps to amend the 1980 Act so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

Finally, the Committee understands from the statement of the Government representative at the Conference Committee in June 1994, that the recommendations of the National Labour Law Commission, which is tripartite in structure and includes eminent legal experts, deal with all the points mentioned in the Committee's previous report, and were submitted to the Prime Minister on 4 June 1994. In addition, the Tripartite Labour Committee headed by the Minister of Labour and Manpower, as well as the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Labour Matters (in which opposition parliamentary members are represented) would provide their input into the drafting of a comprehensive labour code.

The Committee would request the Government to keep it informed on any progress made in the preparation of this new labour code, including whether it contains all or some of the recommendations of the National Labour Law Commission. The Committee would further request the Government to provide it with a copy of this draft labour code once it has been fully drawn up.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the Government's report, the observations of the Bangladesh Employers' Association (BEA) of 15 July 1991 and 13 October 1993, as well as the observations of the Bangladesh Workers' Federation (BWF) dated 30 January 1993.

Voluntary bargaining in the private sector

The Committee had observed that section 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, read with sections 22 and 22A, may serve to impair the development of effective bargaining in the small business sector by inhibiting the development of industry or sectoral unions.

The Committee notes that the Government as well as the BEA repeat their previous statement that under sections 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, workers are free to unite and set up organizations of their own choice, they are allowed to raise industrial disputes and proceed to negotiate under provisions of sections 26, 27(A), 28, 29(A), 30 and 31 of the Ordinance. The Committee notes that, according to information provided by the Government in a previous report, wages and conditions of work in small industries are determined by the Minimum Wages Board. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures taken, in keeping with Article 4 of the Convention, to encourage and promote the development and utilization of machinery for the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements on terms and conditions of employment, particularly in the small business sector, and to provide information on the number of collective agreements, the number of workers concerned, and generally all relevant information on the practical application of the said measures.

Voluntary bargaining in the public sector

The Committee notes that in its comments, the BWF refers to Act No X of 1974, section 3, which allows the Government to determine terms and conditions of service of workers, such determination precluding any agreements, settlements or awards in respect of the determined matters. The Committee recalls that it has repeatedly commented, in previous observations, on the incompatibility of this limitation on voluntary collective bargaining with the principles of the Convention.

The Committee has expressed its concern, for a number of years, in relation to the development of collective bargaining in the public sector and in particular the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of Government-appointed Wages Commissions. It notes that the Government in its report merely reiterates its views.

The Committee can only once more draw the Government's attention to Article 4 of the Convention, which requires that the Government take steps to encourage and promote the development and utilization of machinery for the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements.

Protection against interference

While sections 15 and 16 of the Ordinance of 1969 are designed to provide protection against acts of anti-union discrimination with respect to workers, the Committee again asks the Government to take appropriate measures with a view to amending its legislation so as to provide explicit protection to organizations against acts of interference. The Committee recalls that, to conform with Article 2 of the Convention, special measures should be taken, in particular through legislation, accompanied by appropriate remedies and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions on this point. It accordingly asks the Government again to re-examine the situation and to keep it informed of all developments.

Denial of right to engage in collective bargaining for workers in export processing zones

The Committee had observed that section 11A of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act 1980 appears to deny workers in such zones the right guaranteed by Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention. In its report, the Government states that the said provision was intended to promote investment and generate employment opportunities and also to improve the balance of payment position with added foreign exchange earnings needed for the growth of the economy.

The Committee, as regards wage bargaining, has stressed that if, for imperative reasons of national economic interest, a government considers that the wage rates cannot be fixed freely by means of collective negotiations, these restrictions should be applied as an exceptional measure and only to the extent necessary, should not exceed a reasonable period, and should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect effectively the standard of living of the workers concerned, in particular those who are likely to be the most affected (see 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, paragraph 260). However, the denial to a category of workers such as mentioned above, of the protections and rights defined in the Convention is not compatible with the requirements of the Convention. The Committee therefore must again call upon the Government to amend the 1980 Act so as to bring it into conformity with the Convention.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 81st Session.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee notes the Government's report, and its communications of 6 November and 15 December 1990. It also notes the observations of the Bangladesh Workers' Federation (BWF) contained in communications dated 23 July and 8 October 1990, and of the Bangladesh Employers' Federation (BEF) contained in a communication dated 10 August 1990.

In its 1989 observation the Committee had raised a number of issues relating to:

- voluntary bargaining in the private sector;

- voluntary bargaining in the public sector; and

- protection against interference.

Voluntary bargaining in the private sector

The Committee had noted that the combined effect of sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 might be to impair the development of collective bargaining in small establishments because they appear to inhibit the establishment of "sectoral" or "industry" unions. Accordingly, it had asked the Government to provide any available information as to the development of free collective bargaining in such establishments.

In its report the Government states that sections 7(2), 22 and 22A of the Ordinance do not inhibit the development of voluntary collective bargaining. This is evidenced by the fact that there are in existence a number of unions in small industry. The BEF expresses an essentially similar view.

The Committee takes note of these observations of the Government and the BEF, but remains of the view that the retention of section 7(2) in its present form, when read with sections 22 and 22A, may serve to inhibit the development of effective collective bargaining in the small business sector by inhibiting the development of industry or sectoral unions. Accordingly it must ask for the removal of the requirement in section 7(2) that, in order to be registered under the Ordinance, a trade union must have a membership of at least 30 per cent of the total number of workers in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed.

Voluntary bargaining in the public sector

For some years the Committee has been expressing its concerns in relation to the development of collective bargaining in the public sector, and in particular the practice of determining wage rates and other conditions of employment by means of Government-appointed Wages Commissions. It has pointed out to the Government that under Article 4 of the Convention it is for the Government to encourage the full development and utilisation of machinery for the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements, and has requested the Government to indicate how it intended to meet this obligation in respect of workers in public sector industries.

In its most recent report the Government simply refers to its previous reports whereby it had indicated that the Wages Commission system had been adopted: (i) to ensure uniformity in pay, etc. in the public sector; and (ii) in consequence of the fact that the Government as the employer in the public sector was likely to become the dominant partner in negotiations. The Commission as a third party could help to mitigate the effects of that dominance. The Government has also pointed out that in 1984 the Commission heard representations from representatives of the employers and workers, thereby giving its work a tripartite character.

In the light of this reply, the Committee can only reiterate that conformity with Article 4 requires that the Government take steps to encourage and promote the development and utilisation of machinery for the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements, and again draw the attention of the Government to the principles set out at paragraphs 298 to 319 of its 1983 General Survey.

Protection against interference

The Committee had asked the Government to review its legislation with a view to the adoption of an appropriate measure of protection against "interference" for purposes of Article 2 of the Convention. Both the Government and the BEF indicate that, in their opinion, sections 15 and 16 of the Ordinance provide adequate protection for these purposes. The Committee remains of the view that while these provisions appear to provide an appropriate measure of protection for purposes of Article 1 of the Convention, they do not satisfy the requirements of Article 2.

Denial of right to engage in collective bargaining for workers in export processing zones

In its observation on Convention No. 87 the Committee called upon the Government to amend section 11A of the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority Act 1980 so as to enable workers in those zones to exercise the rights guaranteed by Articles 2 and 3 of that Convention. Section 11A also appears to deny workers in such zones the rights guaranteed by Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Convention No. 98. The Committee must, therefore, call upon the Government to amend the 1980 Act so as to bring it into conformity with this Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1989, published 76th ILC session (1989)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the information that it supplied to the Conference Committee in 1987. It also notes the observations of the Bangladesh Employers' Association.

Voluntary bargaining in the private sector

Referring to its previous requests for information concerning the determination of wages and conditions of employment in the organised private sector, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government relating to the further development of bipartite collective bargaining in this sector. It also notes that in small establishments in the private sector, where workers are usually not organised, wages are fixed by a statutory Minimum Wage Board. It notes that employers, workers or the Government have the right to refer matters to this Board for determination. In this regard, the Committee points out that section 7(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, as amended, provides that no trade union may be registered under the Ordinance unless it has a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments in which it is formed. According to sections 22 and 22A of the Ordinance, only unions which are registered in accordance with section 7 may become collective bargaining agents. The Committee is of the view that taken together these provisions may impair the development of voluntary collective bargaining in small establishments because they appear to inhibit the establishment of "sectoral" or "industry" unions. Accordingly, the Committee requests the Government to provide any available information as to the development of free collective bargaining in this sector.

Voluntary bargaining in the public sector

As indicated in previous comments, the Committee has continuing concerns about the development of collective bargaining in the organised public sector.

Since 1973 wage rates in this sector have been determined by government-appointed Wages Commissions. To date, there have been three such Commissions: in 1973, 1977 and 1984. According to the Government, all three Commissions have taken account of the opinions of all interested parties, including workers, in arriving at their determinations. However, the 1984 Commission was the first to have a formal tripartite structure. The Government states that it adopted this structure in 1984 because, as the employer in this sector, it could be expected to become the dominant partner in negotiations, and that accordingly it felt that it was necessary to provide some means of redressing any resultant imbalance.

The Committee considers that an ad hoc Commission which is established only at the initiative of the Government is not an appropriate means for the promotion of collective bargaining between workers and employers within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes that in a communication dated 29 July 1986, the Bangladesh Employers' Association intimated that it agreed with this assessment.

The Committee points out that, under Article 4, it is for the Government to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for the voluntary negotiation of collective agreements. The Committee therefore requests the Government to state how it intends to meet this obligation in respect of workers in the public sector industries, where they should be able to negotiate freely in their own right with the employer, even though the employer is the State.

In making this request the Committee wishes to draw the attention of the Government to paragraphs 298 to 319 of its 1983 General Survey, which deal with machinery and procedures to facilitate bargaining and with the autonomy of the parties. In particular, it wishes to emphasise that the establishment of conciliation and arbitration procedures, on an ad hoc or a permanent basis, is not necessarily incompatible with the requirements of Article 4. However, all such procedures must be designed to facilitate bargaining between the two sides of industry and leave them free to reach their own settlements. This in turn requires that it should be for the parties to decide whether or not they wish to refer any matters in dispute to binding arbitration.

Protection against interference

The Committee has, on a number of occasions, observed that there is no adequate legislative protection against interference in the establishment, functioning or administration of workers' and employers' organisations as required by Article 2 of the Convention.

The Government has stated that it is willing, where necessary, to protect workers' organisations against any act of interference. Both the Government and the Bangladesh Employers' Association also draw attention to sections 15 and 16 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and point out that they do provide legislative protection with respect to interference in trade union activities.

The Committee notes that sections 15 and 16 of the Ordinance, taken together with section 53, do appear to provide an appropriate form of legislative protection against anti-union discrimination as envisaged by Article 1 of the Convention. However, the Committee is not satisfied that these provisions constitute an adequate response to the requirements of Article 2. Accordingly, it again requests the Government to review its legislation with a view to the adoption of an appropriate measure of protection against "interference" for purposes of Article 2. Such provision should seek to ensure that no employer or employer organisation may support any organisation of workers by financial or other means with a view to placing that organisation of workers under the control of the employer or employer organisation.