Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 2018, Publication : 107ème session CIT (2018)

Convention (n° 111) concernant la discrimination (emploi et profession), 1958 - Bahreïn (Ratification: 2000)



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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