Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 1997, Publication : 85ème session CIT (1997)

Convention (n° 87) sur la liberté syndicale et la protection du droit syndical, 1948 - Bangladesh (Ratification: 1972)

A Government representative, referring to the observations made by the Committee of Experts, noted that freedom of association in Bangladesh was covered by the Constitution and trade union legislation, the Industrial Relations Ordinance (IRO), 1969. The trade union law covered only the organized sector, where between five and six million workers were employed. Other economic sectors were covered by the Constitutional provisions relating to freedom of association. Violations of this right could be submitted to the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, which was the highest judicial body in the country.

With reference to the right of association of persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions, he noted that the IRO allowed workers and employers to form trade unions without requesting prior authorization. Union membership was open to persons in factories, business, industries, shops and public sector corporations. Public servants in the Department of Telephone and Telegram and in the Department of Railways were also covered by the law. However, public servants in other government offices were not covered by the IRO. Moreover, persons in industrial and commercial establishments performing managerial and administrative functions could not join workers' trade unions. Such persons - who comprised approximately two per cent of the workforce - could form associations for the advancement of their rights and interests in accordance with Article 38 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, which gave every citizen the right to form an association or union subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interests of morality or public order. Persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions in the private sector therefore enjoyed the right of association.

On the question of the right of association of public servants, the speaker reiterated the view that the legislation of Bangladesh was in conformity with the requirements of the Convention. As stated in the Conference Committee in 1995, even though public servants were not covered by the IRO, they did have the right to form associations in order to advance their interests. Such associations held meetings, discussed the problems faced by their members and formulated demands for submission to the Government for negotiation. With regard to the exclusion of workers at the Security Printing Press and of public servants from the right to form trade unions, he maintained that the Constitution guaranteed their right to form associations to advance their causes.

The speaker noted that the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning restrictions on the range of persons who could hold office in trade unions had been answered by his Government in the Conference Committee in 1995. He reiterated that, except for workers dismissed for misconduct or convicted of the embezzlement of union funds, moral turpitude or unfair labour practice, every worker had the right to enjoy trade unions of their choice and to hold elected trade union office regardless of their age, sex or creed. Moreover, a worker dismissed for misconduct could seek redress against the management in a court of law. The admission of dismissed workers as either members or officers of trade unions might hinder normal trade union activities, as well as industrial peace and productivity, which might in turn frustrate the underlying purpose of trade unions and collective bargaining. In Bangladesh, dismissed workers were not elected to trade union office. However, section 7-A(1)(b) of the IRO promoted rather than restricted their right to choose their representatives.

In response to the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning external supervision, he stated that the IRO conferred certain quasi-judicial functions on the Registrar of Trade Unions. However, any act of the Registrar could be challenged in a court of law and the Registrar was not permitted by law to revoke the registration of a union without prior permission from the labour court. He did not agree with the observation made by the Committee of Experts that the procedure of supervision by the Registrar of trade union financial affairs should be subject to review by the competent judicial authority affording guarantees of impartiality and objectivity, since any act of the Registrar could already be challenged in a court of law. Moreover, the constitution of a union at the time of its union's registration was always respected.

The Government representative added that the requirement that the membership of a trade union should consist of 30 per cent of the total number of workers concerned before it could be registered was necessary in view of the country's level of social, economic and political development. This measure helped to check the multiplicity of trade unions, which would affect adversely the interests of the workers. Under the existing provisions, up to three unions could be registered for each establishment. Moreover, the IRO included provisions governing the determination of collective bargaining agents. He did not consider that the 30 per cent requirement restricted the right of workers to organize. However, measures adapted to the situation might be taken in the near future. In this connection, he pointed out that Convention No. 87 did not address specifically the danger of a multiplicity of trade unions, but was concerned that workers should be free to establish organizations of their own choosing. If they formed too many organizations, they would weaken their position.

On the question of the right to organize of workers in export processing zones (EPZs), he stated that these workers were not deprived of their fundamental right of freedom of association as guaranteed under Article 38 of the Constitution. In the same way as other developing and less developing countries which were establishing EPZs for the purposes of economic development, Bangladesh had suspended the right to form trade unions in EPZs as a purely temporary measure under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. Indeed, workers in EPZs enjoyed better employment and working conditions, higher wages and very congenial labour management relations. The fact that no complaint had yet been received by the Government from any workers' association alleging that workers in EPZs had been deprived of their rights meant that they had accepted the reality of the situation. Any Convention was ratified with some flexibility to suit national conditions and EPZs were being developed in many other Asian countries. Economic development required the establishment of EPZs, but not at the cost of the social and economic welfare of workers. The Government was very much aware of its responsibility towards its citizens.

He added that the Government of Bangladesh had noted the observations of the Committee of Experts concerning restrictions on the right to strike. Although appreciating the observation of the Committee that it was mindful of the difficulties which might arise during an acute national crisis, he recalled that sections 28, 32(2), 32(4), 33(1), 57, 58 and 59 of the IRO had been examined by the National Labour Law Commission (NLLC), whose report was still under study by the Government. He added that the Government of Bangladesh would welcome the technical assistance of the ILO in any field related to the implementation of Convention No. 87.

The Workers' members deplored the fact that, despite the Government's statement in 1995, at the conclusion of which it had undertaken to provide the Committee of Experts with detailed information, little seemed to have been achieved on this subject. The seven questions raised by the Committee of Experts were not new and required the adoption of urgent measures by the Government to bring the situation into greater conformity with the principles of freedom of association. These matters had already been the subject of exhaustive discussion in 1995, in the same way that related problems concerning the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), had been addressed in 1994. In general, the Workers' members regretted that for many years the Committee of Experts had needed to make observations on important matters related to the fundamental principles of freedom of association. In 1994 and 1995, the Government of Bangladesh had referred to the discussions held in its tripartite national commission. It appeared that this body had submitted recommendations on several points, a number of which were contained in a Bill to amend the legislation, which had not yet been adopted. Most of the criticisms of the Committee of Experts in the case of Bangladesh concerned matters that needed to be respected by every country, irrespective of its level of social and economic development. These matters were also related to the campaign of the Director-General to promote the ratification and application of fundamental Conventions. The Workers' members were aware of the economic and social difficulties confronting Bangladesh.

Better collaboration between the public authorities and civil society, including the organizations of workers and employers, would contribute to combating poverty and social exclusion and could promote social justice and peace. Indeed, many of the problems relating to the application of the Convention had their roots in the tension between the public authorities and civil society in Bangladesh. With regard to the specific comments made by the Committee of Experts, the Workers' members regretted that the Government's report contained little relevant information on the right to organize of persons carrying out managerial or administrative functions, or of public servants. The Government referred laconically to the existence of two associations for public servants in the public sector and referred to other associations without mentioning them by name. Furthermore, the report did not contain information on the provisions guaranteeing the right to organize of managerial staff in the private sector. The Workers' members emphasized that this category of worker should be guaranteed the right to establish and join organizations of their own choosing, including the trade unions that covered other categories of workers. The concept of managerial functions needed to be defined precisely so as not to weaken the trade unions of other workers.

With regard to interference by the public authorities in the establishment and functioning of trade unions, they noted that the problems raised were of a serious nature and related to restrictions on the categories of persons who could hold trade union office, interference by the public authorities in the internal affairs of trade unions and excessive limitations on the establishment and operation of trade unions at the enterprise level.

With regard to external control, they regretted that the information provided to the Committee of Experts was insufficient to establish whether such control was limited to supervising the rules of trade unions and the application of the law, or whether such matters were subject to really impartial judicial control.

On the subject of the requirement for the membership of a trade union to include 30 per cent of the workers in an enterprise before it could be registered, they warned that this threshold raised serious problems in systems for the recognition of trade union organizations which were based in part or in whole on enterprise unions, with the risk that workers in small- and medium-sized enterprises would be excluded. They therefore emphasized the need to establish without delay procedures and provisions which promoted freedom of association, as set out in the Preamble to the ILO Constitution and in the Convention.

On the question of EPZs, they noted that the Government referred to the recommendations of the National Labour Law Commission (NLLC) and to a Bill and the fact that, anticipating certain amendments to the legislation, some workers appeared to be authorized to establish trade unions. Workers in EPZs and their organizations needed guarantees set out in specific legal provisions for the effective exercise of freedom of association. The protection of the rights of these workers was a major concern of national and international trade union movements and of the ILO, which had established a specific programme on this subject.

Furthermore, with regard to the right to strike, the procedures and provisions governing the exercise of the right to strike were such that, in practice, the very principle of the right to strike was jeopardized. They recalled the conclusions of the Conference Committee in 1995, which urged the Government to ensure that the procedures and provisions concerning strikes did not amount to a denial of this fundamental right, and they deplored the fact that the Government's response was confined to stating that it had noted the observations of the Committee of Experts. The powers of the Government to prohibit the right to strike, if it considered it contrary to the national interest, constituted a violation of the principles of freedom of association and were inadmissible in a democratic society. The national legislation reflected the gap between civil society and the public authorities. However, better collaboration between them could promote social peace and the emergence of a more stable industrial relations system.

In conclusion, the Workers' members called for the amendment as soon as possible of the Labour Code and other relevant laws to take into account all of the observations of the Committee of Experts and the recommendations of the national social partners. They urged the Government to provide detailed information to the Committee of Experts on all developments, and particularly on the work of the NLLC and any progress achieved in law and in practice. Finally, the Government should make as much use as possible of ILO technical assistance.

The Employers' members recalled that the application of Convention No. 87 by Bangladesh had been examined on three occasions during the 1990s by the Committee of Experts, and had been discussed by the Conference Committee in 1995. There were a number of important issues involved, which required individual examination.

With regard to the right of association of persons carrying out managerial and administrative functions in the public and private sectors, the important point was the manner in which these categories of persons were delimited. No specific information had been provided on this point by the Government representative. However, the Government's response to the comments of the Committee of Experts had made reference to two associations and the Committee of Experts in its comments had requested the Government to provide specific information on the number and size of any other such associations. The issue which arose in both the private and the public sector was that the persons in question might in practice be the representatives of employers. They could not therefore be members of unions at the same time, as they would then have to negotiate with themselves. The Government representative had stated that the category of persons concerned covered two per cent of all the workers involved, which appeared to be a reasonable number. Although those who were really managerial personnel could be excluded from the right to establish and join workers' unions, any who did not come into this category should be treated as normal workers. The Government should therefore be requested to provide further information on this point in an additional report.

With regard to the right of public servants to organize, the Employers' members noted that the draft Labour Code would appear to continue to deny this right to public servants and to restrict their right to issue publications. The Government representative had not provided very much information in this respect on whether it intended to change the proposed provisions.

On the subject of restrictions on the range of persons who could hold trade union office, the Employers' members noted that, among others, workers who were dismissed for misconduct could not hold such office. The Government representative had stated that this measure was designed to protect the activities of the trade unions. However, the Committee of Experts had pointed out that such legislation entailed a risk of interference by employers. The Committee of Experts had rightly requested the amendment of the relevant provisions to provide for greater flexibility in relation to the membership of trade unions and the holding of trade union office. What was required was a legal examination of the cases which had occurred in this respect, but the Committee of Experts had not requested more complete information on this point.

On the question of external supervision of the activities of trade unions, the Employers' members noted that the Registrar of Trade Unions enjoyed excessively broad powers, which included the right to examine many kinds of documents at any time, and not just on a periodical basis. In such cases there should be proper independent procedures to prevent any undue interference in the activities of trade unions. The Government representative had stated that such machinery existed. The Government should therefore be requested to provide additional information on the applicable provisions which determined and restricted the powers of the Registrar and provided for independent supervision of his activities.

With regard to the 30 per cent requirement, under which no trade union could be registered unless it had a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers employed in the establishment or group of establishments concerned, the Employers' members noted that the status of trade unions could be withdrawn when membership fell below that level. This was an exaggerated restriction by the State which placed too great a restriction on freedom of association and prevented the creation of new trade union organizations. It was important to remember that most workers' organizations had started out with few members. Although the Convention did not contain specific provisions in this respect and it was for the State to set the necessary conditions, these conditions should not constitute obstacles to the development of new trade unions.

Turning to the question of export processing zones (EPZs), which existed in many countries, the Committee of Experts had reported that the NLLC had submitted a report on this subject which was being studied by the Government. This report, and a Bill on that matter, would be submitted to Parliament. Although the Government representative had not provided further details on the NLLC's report, he had claimed that workers in EPZs enjoyed better conditions of work than the rest of the country's workforce and were not unhappy with their situation. Although the Convention did not state that the same labour law had to apply throughout a country, or particularly in EPZs, it did require the observance of the principles of freedom of association on a nationwide basis.

Turning to the comments of the Committee of Experts on restrictions on the right to strike in Bangladesh, the Employers' members referred to their own position on this question and noted that there was no basis in the Convention for measuring the extent of any restrictions that were imposed on this right. The provisions of the Convention would be infringed where the right to strike was constrained to such an extent that it no longer existed. The Employers' members recalled that strikes could have serious repercussions on the national economy, particularly in view of the growing interdependence of the productive and service sectors. It was therefore relatively frequent for governments to establish a certain threshold for the proportion of the workers who needed to give prior approval to the calling of a strike in order to prevent disruption of the productive process. In this case, the level was set at three quarters of the workers concerned, which seemed reasonable. The Committee of Experts had also referred to the possibility of prohibiting a strike if it were considered prejudicial to the national interest or where it involved a public utility service. The Employers' members recognized that these expressions were not clear. However, the comments of the Committee of Experts were based on its narrow interpretation of the essential services. The Government should be requested to provide further information on the application of the relevant legal provisions in practice and the cases, and circumstances, in which these provisions had been invoked. However, this had not been done in the report of the Committee of Experts. The Employers' members recalled in this respect that it was the fundamental right of every State to determine the extent to which certain limits should be applied to the right to strike for the public good.

In view of the complexity and large number of issues involved, it was not possible to arrive at conclusions, in this case, easily. Further information should therefore be requested in the form of a written report that covered all of the questions raised in detail. The Government should also specify the areas in which change was seriously being contemplated so that these points could be taken up in future and the changes adopted could be evaluated.

The Workers' member of Burkina Faso recalled that, for many years, the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts had asked Bangladesh to modify its legislation and practice to conform fully to the principles of freedom of association. She regretted that, despite these appeals, numerous and grave violations of these principles had again been committed, including acts of violence against the members and leaders of trade unions. By way of example, she stated that the Independent Union of Textile Workers of Bangladesh and its members, the large majority of which were women, had been the target of acts of aggression on the part of the public authorities. In August 1995, the leaders of this union had filed a complaint with the investigating official, but it had not been received. Following the institution of judicial action in conjunction with the Association of Exporters of Bangladesh, the Dhaka headquarters of this union had been ransacked in November 1995 and the members had been subjected to violence. Furthermore, the members and leaders of a union of a textiles enterprise in Dhaka had been the target of threats and harassments by the public authorities throughout 1995 and 1996. In the month of June 1996, the competent authority had refused, for the second time, to officially register this union. The speaker noted with concern that, generally, when workers registered complaints with the competent public authorities, they were not listened to and did not get any cooperation in finding an acceptable solution for the problems they faced. She regretted that the Government's report did not provide any information on the measures taken in this regard since the last report examined by the Committee in 1995. Finally, concerning export processing zones, she stressed the importance of these workers, the great majority of which were women working in miserable conditions, benefitting from the right to organize without restrictions or discrimination of any kind. She highly doubted that the absence of complaints by these workers effectively signified that they did not have any complaints, as the Government had indicated. Finally, she earnestly requested the Government of Bangladesh to modify without delay its law and practice in order to bring them into full conformity with the principles of freedom of association, and in particular with the provisions of the Convention.

The Workers' member of the United States emphasized the serious nature of the case, which concerned many of the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, including the right of association of public servants, the denial of the right to organize in EPZs, restrictions on persons who could hold trade union office, interference by public authorities in the affairs of trade unions and excessive restrictions on the right to strike. He therefore regretted that the Government representative had said very little that was new since the Committee had last reviewed the case in 1995. With reference to the statement by the Workers' member of Burkina Faso concerning the continued violation of the Convention with regard to workers in the garment industry, he recalled that there were over 800,000 workers in the industry, approximately 80 per cent of whom were women. Many garment factories were located in EPZs, where trade unions were illegal. The Government representative had made no apologies for this fact and indeed appeared to be informing the Committee that the practice would continue. This matter would need to be followed very closely.

The speaker added that during the past few years there had been a courageous effort to organize independent unions in garment factories and to bring those workplace unions into a single industrial federation, the Bangladesh Independent Garment Union (BIGU), which was independent of any political party, employers and the Government. This attempt to organize an independent, democratic industrial federation from the ground up would, if successful, be of truly historic significance for Bangladeshi workers. However, up to now the Government had refused to legally recognize BIGU, in clear violation of the Convention. He noted that this effort to organize the workers had coincided with the negotiation of an agreement with the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) for the elimination of child labour in the garment industry. The ILO had played a role in bringing about the agreement and in its implementation. BIGU was an ardent supporter of the agreement and had established the first schools for the children rescued from the garment factories. However, there were many forces in Bangladesh endeavouring to ensure that BIGU's organizing effort would fail. Some of the many personal sacrifices made by the workers in this respect were recorded in the ICFTU 1997 Annual Survey of Violations of Trade Union Rights. In particular, he pointed out that the garment industry was a major exporter producing largely for well-known multinational companies based in the United States and other countries. This case brought to light the responsibilities, not only of the Bangladeshi Government and factory operators, but also of multinational enterprises to ensure that the fundamental human rights contained in ILO Conventions were respected. Any denial of this responsibility would only strengthen the growing forces that were opposed to the expansion of international trade, economic integration and globalization. Full implementation of the Convention by the Government, with the active support and assistance of multinational enterprises, would play an important role in resisting such protectionist forces and ensuring that these processes benefitted as many people as possible in Bangladesh and elsewhere, and not just the most privileged. Unfortunately, much still needed to be done in this respect, as shown by this case.

The Workers' member of India agreed that the case raised matters of serious concern. As a neighbour of Bangladesh, he received constant reports that trade union rights were not respected in that country. Although the Government representative had stated that trade unions could go to court to protect their rights, this was not always possible in practice. He referred to a case of the dismissal of workers in 1996, in which the workers concerned had endeavoured to take action through the courts. However, the trade union representatives who had assisted them had been told to leave their jobs, been beaten up and offered different jobs on condition that they did not go to court. It was therefore not true to say that workers and their representatives could obtain protection for their rights through the courts in Bangladesh.

Recalling the statement of the Government representative concerning the right of association of public servants, he warned that this statement raised the issue of the difference between trade unions and associations. The latter did not have the same rights as trade unions and it could not therefore be claimed that public servants in Bangladesh enjoyed the right to freedom of association. On the issue of the 30 per cent minimum requirement for membership of a trade union before it could be registered, he pointed out that this level was set much lower in most other countries. Although the Government representative claimed that the reason for the measure was to prevent a multiplicity of unions, its real objective was to raise obstacles to the establishment of trade unions in general. Moreover, the situation in EPZs in Bangladesh was also very serious. The message disseminated to multinational enterprises by the national authority responsible for promoting these zones emphasized the fact that the law prohibited the formation of trade unions. This was proof enough that the Government did not respect the right to freedom of association or collective bargaining in EPZs. Another anti-trade union measure that was not accepted by the trade unions of other countries was the broad powers of the Registrar to interfere with their activities through inspections of trade union offices, documents and staff.

On the question of the range of persons who could hold office in trade unions, he noted that workers could be dismissed for unfair labour practices, without such practices being specified in detail in the legislation. This gave the Government broad powers, for example, to dismiss trade union leaders when it so wished. Other serious constraints on freedom of association were the requirement that 75 per cent of the workers concerned needed to give their consent to a strike and the possibility of prohibiting strikes either which lasted more than 30 days or which were considered prejudicial to the national interest. These measures constituted serious constraints on trade union rights and gave the Government wide powers to prohibit strikes. For example, it had been possible for the Government to prevent a strike by telephone workers by claiming that they worked in an essential service.

Although the Prime Minister of the country had come out in favour of the adoption of changes in these matters, no concrete action had yet been taken. It was necessary to amend the legal provisions and for measures to be taken with the support of workers' organizations. A request should therefore be made to the Government to take the necessary measures to achieve progress in the application of all aspects of the Convention before the Conference Committee met again next year.

The Workers' member of Greece considered that this was an example among others where a ratification of a Convention was of doubtful value as it was forgotten in practice. The content of the Committee of Experts' observation highlighted a strange concern for workers, who were mature adults who should be allowed freely to organize themselves. The explanation according to which workers could be fired for misconduct should be further clarified, as it would be a cause for concern if the right to determine what constituted misconduct rested in the hands of employers or of a governmental institution and not in the hands of the judiciary. In any event, the workers were not so stupid as to elect dishonest leaders. This provision should therefore be repealed. As regards the requirement of a three-quarters consenting majority to declare a strike, it constituted a blatant example of interference. The economic situation was often invoked as a reason for not applying standards, while experience showed that no country could prosper without respecting them. If the Government really was intent on applying the Convention, it should undertake to do so and this Committee would then, next year, be able to take note of any progress made. The dialogue in this Committee should not only be diplomatic in nature, but should give a voice to the workers not present here and who were unable to make themselves heard in their own country.

The Workers' member of Italy was of the opinion that, in spite of the sparse responses provided by the Government, the seven points raised by the Committee of Experts bore witness to a general and persistent violation of freedom of association. The provisions affected the right of the unions freely to choose their leaders and allowed for unjustified forms of intervention by the authorities on trade union premises. A complaint concerning violation of freedom of association submitted by a union of textile workers had resulted in severe conclusions by the Committee on Freedom of Association in this respect. The 30 per cent requirement amounted, in practice, to a bar to recruitment of new trade union members. Furthermore, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, permitted the firing of trade union leaders. As regards the denial of the right to organize in export processing zones, it should be recalled that, in 1992, the Government undertook to cease this practice. As for the restrictions on the right to strike in essential services, they should be determined through tripartite negotiations and not in an authoritarian way. The elections held last year bore witness to the will of this country to progress towards democracy. No such progress was possible, however, in the absence of respect for fundamental rights. The first stages of the joint programme between textile workers, UNICEF and the ILO to abolish child labour were encouraging; perhaps a similar type of programme could be of assistance to overcoming the obstacles to freedom of association.

The Workers' member of Colombia expressed his concern regarding the lack of information provided by the Government representative, especially since hopes had been raised that the principles of freedom of association would be fully respected. Concerns had been raised regarding the interference of the Government in the internal affairs of trade unions, particularly in the case of workers dismissed on grounds of misconduct who were then prevented from holding office in trade unions. In certain countries being a trade union member in itself can lead to unjust dismissal. Freedom of association and the right to strike had to be guaranteed in export processing zones, as well as in the public sector. These rights had to be respected throughout the world, and especially in developing countries. Despite the observations formulated by the Committee of Experts, there had been little progress and repression continued. He could only hope that next year would bring about genuine progress concerning the respect of workers' rights.

The Workers' member of Pakistan, pointing out that a new Government which had come into power last year had committed itself to respecting freedom of association, called upon the Government representatives to adhere to Convention No. 87. It was not only the ratification of a Convention but its implementation in letter and spirit that mattered. First of all, trade union rights in export processing zones as well as in rural areas needed to be respected. Secondly, the restrictions on trade unions to elect their office-bearers needed to be abolished, since freedom of association dictated that trade unions elect their representatives in full freedom without interference from the Government. As a result, section 7-A(1)(b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO), needed to be repealed. Finally, the requirement under the IRO that no trade union may be registered unless it had a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the workforce meant that it would be difficult to organize workers in a large establishment, and therefore needed to be removed. He hoped that the Government would take up the offer of technical assistance of the Office.

The Employers' member of India indicated that labour laws in Bangladesh and India were similar. Thus, while the Trade Union Act in India merely required a membership of seven workers to form a union, persons carrying out managerial and supervisory functions preferred to form associations, and be registered under the Societies Act, in view of the nature of their functions. Therefore, in Bangladesh, the restrictions placed on them under the IRO were justified. Similarly, the restrictions on the range of persons who could hold trade union office were justified so that the internal trade union leadership could grow. The 30 per cent requirement under the IRO had to be maintained so as to avoid the proliferation of trade unions which were neither in the interest of the industry, nor the workers. Finally, the right to strike was not an absolute right and should be subject to the interests of the State. The type of overprotective pro-worker regulation promoted in discussions here was eroding employers' rights to manage their enterprises; he hoped that this Committee would have a balanced view and keep in mind the entire industrial relations scenario.

The Employers' members recalled that the seven points which were taken up by the Committee of Experts did not all have the same importance and that new information was required and that the necessary changes should be carried out.

The Committee noted the statement of the Government representative and the debate which had ensued. It observed that, for many years, important and numerous discrepancies, in particular in the export processing zones, existed between, on the one hand, the national legislation and practice and, on the other hand, the provisions of the Convention. The Committee expressed the hope that the National Labour Legislation Commission would rapidly conclude its work on revising the labour legislation and that the new Labour Code would take into account the numerous and repeated observations of the Committee of Experts and also those of the Conference Committee. It reminded the Government of the possibility of requesting technical assistance from the Office in this regard.