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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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