Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2016, publiée 106ème session CIT (2017)

Convention (n° 81) sur l'inspection du travail, 1947 - Bangladesh (Ratification: 1972)

The Committee recalls the discussion in the Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) of the International Labour Conference at its 103rd Session (May–June 2014) on the application of the Convention, and the findings contained in the report prepared following the direct contacts mission undertaken in 2015 at the request of the Conference Committee.

Articles 3(1)(a) and (b), 13, 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the Convention. Inspection activities in sectors other than the ready-made garment (RMG) sector. Availability of inspection statistics disaggregated by sector. Publication and communication of annual labour inspection reports necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the labour inspection system. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that inspection activities appeared to continue to focus on the RMG sector. The Committee notes that the Government provides a certain number of labour inspection statistics in its report, in reply to the Committee’s request, including in relation to: (i) the number of workplaces liable to inspection and workers employed therein (Article 21(c)); (ii) the number of inspection visits undertaken (Article 21(d)); (iii) the number of violations detected; (iv) the number of cases reported to the labour courts; (v) the total amount of penalties imposed (Article 21(e)); and (vi) the incidence of industrial accidents (Article 21(f)). However, the Committee also notes that disaggregated statistics were not consistently provided as requested by the Committee (for example, the total number of inspection visits undertaken in 2015 were not disaggregated by sector). This does not allow for an informed assessment concerning the adequacy of coverage by the labour inspectorate of other sectors.

While the Committee welcomes these statistics, it also notes that once again, no annual report on labour inspection activities was communicated to the ILO, despite the Government’s indication in its last report that such a report would be published soon. In reply to the Committee’s previous request to report in detail on the steps taken for the proposed establishment of a register of all workplaces liable to inspection and the workers employed therein, the Government indicates that ILO technical assistance would be helpful in developing such a register. In this respect, the Committee also notes the Government’s reference to an interagency working group (composed of the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE), the Department of Fire Service and Civil Defense (DFSCD), the Directorate of Labour (DOL), the capital development authorities (RAJUK), the Bangladesh Employers Federation (BEF), the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA), the Bangladesh Knitwear Manufacturers and Experts Association (BKMEA) and the German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ)) established with a view to compiling a database of relevant information. The Committee trusts that the annual inspection report will be communicated soon, and that it will contain information on all the subjects listed in Article 21(a)–(g) of the Convnention. It also requests that the Government provide more detailed information on the concrete steps taken to establish a register of all workplaces liable to inspection and of the workers employed therein, including those undertaken with ILO technical assistance. The Committee also once again requests that the Government provide detailed information on the implementation of the measures announced in its previous report to improve the collection of inspection data (that is to say, the development of a computer-based reporting mechanism; the development of a revised labour inspection checklist; and the recruitment of staff for the collection, compilation and updating of data).

Article 3(2). Additional functions entrusted to labour inspectors. The Committee previously recalled, with reference to subsection 124(a) of the Bangladesh Labour Act (BLA) and Rule 113 of the 2015 Bangladesh Labour Rules (BLR, 2015) regulating mediation and conciliation in claims concerning outstanding payments or benefits, as well as with reference to Paragraph 8 of the Labour Inspection Recommendation, 1947 (No. 81), that the functions of labour inspectors should not include the conciliation or arbitration of labour disputes.

In this respect, the Government explains that two separate departments, namely, the DIFE and the DOL are responsible for the enforcement of the BLA, 2006 (as amended). The Government adds that subsection 124(a) of the BLA, 2006 (as amended) entrusts – DIFE labour inspectors with conciliation functions in respect of wages only, and that labour officers of the DOL undertake conciliation and mediation functions in respect of all other matters. Noting the Government’s indication that the conciliation and mediation functions of labour inspectors are limited to the payment of wages and benefits, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the proportion of time devoted to conciliation and mediation functions by DIFE labour inspectors in 2015 and 2016. The Committee also requests that the Government give consideration to entrusting the mediation and conciliation of individual labour disputes concerning wages and benefits to another public body, such as the DOL.

Article 6. Status and conditions of service of labour inspectors. In its previous comment, the Committee noted from the direct contacts mission report that the retention of labour inspectors was problematic and that a number of recently recruited labour inspectors had left the DIFE, after having been trained, to take up work with other government services. In this regard, the Committee requested that the Government review the professional profiles and grades of labour inspectors to ensure that they reflect the career prospects of public servants exercising similar functions within other government services, such as tax inspectors or the police.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates, in reply to this request, that labour inspectors enjoy stability of employment, that their basic service conditions are similar to other permanent government employees and that their service rules ensure equality among all labour inspectors in terms of wages and career prospects. The Committee once again requests that the Government provide information on the wages and benefits, as well as professional grade structure, enjoyed by other government employees exercising similar functions, such as tax inspectors or police officers. The Committee requests that the Government identify the reason for the high attrition rates in the case of labour inspectors so far as it relates to matters other than their conditions of service.

Article 7. Training of labour inspectors. In its previous comment, the Committee noted with interest that all labour inspectors had received training on a number of subjects, including occupational safety and health (OSH). While noting the general information on training in the Government’s report, the Committee notes that the Government has not provided a reply in relation to the Committee’s request for specific information on the training provided to labour inspectors following the adoption of the Bangladesh Labour Rules (BLR), 2015. Neither does the Government provide the requested information on whether the Government has given specific attention, in the design of the training programmes for labour inspectors on freedom of association, to its comments under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), so as to ensure that all training is carried out in full conformity with that Convention. The Committee requests that the Government provide detailed information on the training provided to labour inspectors during the period covered by its next report. It once again requests that the Government provide information on how it has specifically addressed the Committee’s comments under Convention No. 87 in the design of the training for labour inspectors on freedom of association.

Articles 10 and 11. Strengthening of the human and material resources of the labour inspectorate. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the steps taken to strengthen and restructure the labour inspectorate, including by the proposed threefold increase of its human and budgetary resources. In its previous comment, it welcomed the increase in the number of labour inspectors from 43 to 283 (between 2013 and 2015), and noted that the vacant positions were in the process of being filled, including through the request made to the Public Service Commission to recruit 154 additional labour inspectors.

The Committee notes with regret that the Government has failed to provide any new information on the progress made in the recruitment of labour inspectors (including those specializing in OSH) and that it has not provided the concrete timeline as requested for the filling of the 575 approved positions and the recruitment of the 800 labour inspectors that the Government had previously committed itself to. However, the Committee welcomes the description provided by the Government concerning the improvement in the material conditions of the labour inspectorate (in particular, the transport facilities now available) and the steady increase in the budget allocation to the DIFE. The Committee once again requests that the Government fill, without further delay, all of the 575 labour inspection posts that have already been approved, and recruit an adequate number of qualified labour inspectors taking into account the number of workplaces liable to inspection. It requests that the Government continue to provide information on the improvement in the resources and on the material and transport facilities available to the labour inspectorate.

Articles 12(1), 15(c) and 16. Inspections without previous notice. Duty of confidentiality in relation to complaints. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that in 2014, only 668 of the 25,525 labour inspections carried out in 2014 were unannounced, and expressed the view that, where only 2.5 per cent of all inspections are random or complaints-driven inspections undertaken without prior notice, the establishment of a link between the inspection and the existence of a complaint can readily be established, and confidentiality is, in consequence, undermined. Further, it also considered that principally conducting announced inspections may undermine the effectiveness of inspections because problems may be concealed and so remain undetected.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates, in reply to its previous request to enshrine in law a requirement that the existence of a complaint and its source are kept confidential, that the absence of such a provision in the BLA, 2006 (as amended) does not undermine confidentiality in practice. The Committee further notes that the Government has not provided a reply to its previous request for information on the practical steps taken to ensure that a sufficient number of unannounced labour inspections (that is, random or complaints-driven inspections implemented without prior notice) are undertaken so as to ensure that labour inspectors are able to effectively discharge their duty to maintain confidentiality. The Committee once again requests that the Government ensure that a sufficient number of unannounced labour inspections are undertaken and requests that the Government provide information on any practical measures taken in this regard. The Committee also requests that the Government codify the duty of confidentiality, either in the Labour Act or in other regulations or guidelines concerning labour inspection, for the purpose of legal clarity.

Articles 17 and 18. Legal proceedings, effective enforcement and sufficiently dissuasive penalties. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the International Trade Union Confederation’s (ITUC) indication that the enforcement of the law remained a serious challenge for a number of reasons. These included the absence of any power in the hands of a labour inspector to impose a fine and the need to report all cases of non-compliance to the courts, the insufficiency of legal staff employed by the Ministry of Labour and Employment and the DIFE and the low level of fines which were too negligible to be dissuasive. The Committee also noted from the direct contacts mission report that sentences of imprisonment were rarely, if ever, imposed.

The Committee notes that the Government once again recalls that the level of fines for certain provisions of the BLA, were increased to 25,000 Bangladeshi taka (BDT) (approximately US$325) following the 2013 amendments to the Labour Act. In reply to the Committee’s request, the Government also indicates that labour inspectors must still refer all cases of non-compliance to the courts and that in 2015, 30,186 labour inspections were carried out and 1,431 cases were filed with the labour courts (including 253 cases concerning OSH and 12 cases concerning child labour). Concerning the Committee’s request to provide information on the number of trade union cases referred to the labour courts, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that all relevant cases (including cases of anti-union discrimination) were addressed by the DOL who are responsible for conciliation and mediation. In this regard, the Committee observes that cases of anti-union discrimination are not generally appropriate for conciliation or mediation and in any event must not undermine strict enforcement of applicable laws.

Finally, the Committee notes that the Government, once again, does not provide information on any proposed steps directed at improving the effective enforcement of labour law, nor does it provide the requested information on the outcome of cases referred to the labour courts. The Committee once again urges the Government to provide information on the measures introduced or envisaged to ensure that penalties for labour law violations are sufficiently dissuasive and that fines are effectively enforced.

The Committee further urges the Government to provide the previously requested information on the number of violations detected and information on the number of cases filed with the labour courts and the outcome of such cases (the number of infringements found and the amount of any fine imposed, etc.). The Committee once again requests that the Government specify how many legal staff with responsibility for the enforcement of the violations detected are employed at the DIFE.

Articles 2, 4 and 23. Labour inspection in export processing zones (EPZs) and special economic zones (SEZs). In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA) remained responsible for securing the rights of workers in EPZs. It noted that counsellors, conciliators and arbitrators of the BEPZA were responsible for handling labour disputes and dealing with unfair labour practices, in addition to the labour courts designated to address labour disputes in EPZs. However, the Committee noted the absence of a labour inspection system (within the meaning provided for under the Convention) in EPZs. It expressed deep concern that the Government had not yet given effect to the 2014 conclusions of the CAS and prioritized amendments to the legislation governing EPZs so as to bring them within the purview of the labour inspectorate. In this respect, the Committee also noted that a separate draft Labour Act for EPZs had been prepared, which according to the observations of the ITUC, gave rise to a number of concerns. These concerns included that enforcement in EPZs would remain vested with the BEPZA and that the powers and functions of the EPZ labour courts and the EPZ Labour Appellate Tribunal established under the draft Labour Act for EPZs would be severely limited in comparison with courts established under the BLA.

The Committee notes that the Government indicates, in reply to its reiterated request to bring the EPZs within the purview of the labour inspectorate, that the Cabinet has approved a comprehensive draft EPZ Labour Act which provides for the enhanced protection of workers in EPZs, and which is in the process of being adopted by Parliament. It also notes the Government’s reply, in response to its request concerning the legislation applicable in the proposed SEZs, that SEZs will initially be governed by the EPZ Labour Act. The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the EPZ Labour Act will bring EPZs under the purview of the labour inspectorate as requested by the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts. The Committee also requests that the Government ensures that SEZs will be brought within the purview of the labour inspectorate.

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

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2017.]