Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2018, Publication: 107th ILC session (2018)



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.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Equality of opportunity between women and men. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that women are free to choose jobs that suit them and their capacities, and that there are no legal obstacles limiting the jobs women may undertake. The Government states further that the Ministry of Labour uses its resources to develop and promote women’s skills in order to help them access the labour market and get promoted. The Government also points to the increasing number of women benefiting from vocational training (399 in 2005 and 601 in 2006). Even in the absence of legal obstacles to women’s access to certain areas of vocational training and to certain jobs, the Committee recalls that stereotyped assumptions regarding women’s aspirations and capabilities, as well as their suitability for certain jobs, continue to lead to the segregation of women and men in education and training, and consequently in the job market. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to take concrete measures to ensure women have access to a wider range of educational, training and employment opportunities, including in areas traditionally dominated by men, and to provide information on the steps taken in this regard.  The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of women and men in vocational training courses, including the nature of the courses being undertaken, and how such training has translated into employment opportunities for women. In the absence of a reply from the Government, the Committee again requests information on the specific measures taken under the National Strategy for the Advancement of Women to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation, including measures designed to overcome traditional stereotypes affecting women’s participation in the labour market, and on the impact of such measures. Please also provide information on the number of women and men, including foreign workers, benefiting from the incentives provided under the unemployment insurance scheme to enter the labour market or return to work, and under the National Employment Project, and the jobs that have been secured as a result.

National equality policy on grounds other than sex. Noting the importance of a national policy promoting equality of opportunity and treatment on all the grounds enumerated in the Convention, and in the absence of a response from the Government on this point, the Committee once again asks the Government to indicate the steps taken to adopt a national policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment on the grounds of race, colour, political opinion, religion, national extraction and social origin.

Article 3(a). Cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any cooperation with employers’ and workers’ organizations to promote non-discrimination and equality in employment and occupation.

Article 3(d). Public service. The Committee notes the entry into force of the Civil Service Act No. 35, 2006, and Order No. 37 of 2007 promulgating the regulations to the Civil Service Act. A translation of these documents has not yet been made available. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to provide information identifying the specific provisions, including the content thereof, of the Civil Service Act and the accompanying regulations which are relevant to the implementation of the Convention.

Enforcement. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there have been no cases of discrimination in employment received by the Ministry or the labour inspectorate. The Committee recalls that the absence of discrimination cases could indicate the lack of an appropriate legal basis or procedures for bringing a claim, or lack of awareness of the principles of the Convention, or of the existing procedures. The Committee, therefore, requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken to raise awareness of workers and employers of the principles of the Convention, and of available avenues of dispute resolution. In the absence of a reply to its previous request, the Committee again asks the Government to indicate whether the training programmes organized for the judiciary and law enforcement officials specifically address the issue of discrimination in employment and occupation.

Statistics. The Committee again requests the Government to provide statistical information on the distribution of women and men in the different economic sectors, occupational categories and positions, including information on the levels of remuneration.

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

The Committee notes the communication of the Bahrain Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI) received on 15 September 2009. The Committee asks the Government to respond to the issues raised in the communication.

Legislative developments. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the draft Labour Code is still under discussion in the National Assembly. In its previous comments, the Committee had expressed the hope that a specific provision would be included in the new Labour Code defining and prohibiting discrimination. The Government had stated in a previous report that the comments made by the Committee had been taken into consideration in the revision process. In the Government’s most recent report, it states that as current customs which have the force of law do not distinguish between men and women in the workplace, an explicit text on the issue is not seen to be necessary. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the absence of discriminatory provisions in the legislation is not sufficient to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation, with a view to eliminating any discrimination in respect thereof, as set out in Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee considers that, given persisting patterns of discrimination in drafting a new Labour Code, it would be regrettable if the opportunity were not taken to clearly define and prohibit direct and indirect discrimination in all aspects of employment and occupation to ensure more effective application of the Convention. The Committee, therefore, strongly urges the Government to take steps to ensure that the new Labour Code includes provisions explicitly defining and prohibiting direct and indirect discrimination, on all the grounds enumerated in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention, with respect to all aspects of employment and occupation, and covering all workers, including domestic workers, casual workers and agricultural workers. Please provide information on any developments in this regard.

Sex discrimination. Legislation. The Committee previously raised concerns regarding section 63 of the Labour Code, which according to the English translation published by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, provides that “the Minister for Labour and Social Affairs shall make an Order prescribing the occupations and jobs in respect of which an employer may offer alternative employment to a female worker because of her marriage”. The Government merely replies that the Bahraini legislation does not impose any restrictions on women in employment, and that the new Labour Code will grant protective privileges for women. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that the new Labour Code does not discriminate against women by authorizing occupations and jobs to be prescribed in respect of which an employer may offer alternative employment to women because of their marriage. The Committee also hopes that the new Labour Code will strictly limit protective measures for women to maternity protection.

Sex discrimination. Sexual harassment. The Committee notes that the Government had previously indicated that it would take the necessary steps to enact appropriate regulation on sexual harassment. However, in its most recent report, the Government indicates that it considers the existing provisions of the Penal Code punishing rape and sexual assault to provide sufficient protection against sexual harassment. The Committee recalls that sexual harassment is a serious form of sex discrimination, and it is important to take effective measures to tackle not only the most serious forms of sexual harassment that would constitute sexual assault, but the range of conduct in the context of work that should be addressed as sexual harassment. Referring to its 2002 general observation, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the definition of sexual harassment set out therein. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that the new Labour Code defines and prohibits sexual harassment at work, encompassing both quid pro quo and hostile environment harassment. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on specific measures taken to prevent and address sexual harassment at the workplace.

Migrant workers. In its previous comments, the Committee raised concerns regarding the vulnerability of migrant workers to abuse and discrimination, particularly women migrant domestic workers. The Committee also drew attention to the fact that this situation is exacerbated by the sponsorship system, making migrant workers dependent on their employers and reluctant to make formal complaints. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the draft Labour Code will address issues such as hours at work, holidays and bonuses for domestic workers. The Committee also notes that 915 complaints were filed by migrant workers in 2008, compared to 1,070 in 2007. The Government attributes the decrease in the number of complaints to increasing awareness and care by employers, and better monitoring and application of the legislation, and indicates that the majority of complaints involved non-payment of entitlements upon cessation of activity, linked to the financial crisis. The Committee also notes the adoption of Order No. 79 of 16 April 2009, which relates to the procedures governing the transfer of a foreign worker from one employer to another. Section 2 of the Order states that the foreign worker shall have the right to transfer to work with another employer without violating the rights of an employer by virtue of the provisions of the law or the text of the labour contract concluded between the parties. The Committee also notes that the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, in collaboration with the International Labour Office, has carried out a study on the alternatives to the sponsorship system, and is in the process of considering this study.

The Committee would like to underline the importance of ensuring effective legislative protection, and the promotion and enforcement of such legislation, to ensure that migrant workers are not subject to discrimination and abuse. The Committee also considers that providing for appropriate flexibility for migrant workers to change their workplace assists in avoiding situations in which they become particularly vulnerable to discrimination and abuse. The Committee recalls the particular vulnerability of migrant domestic workers to multiple forms of discrimination based on race, colour, religion or sex due to the individual employment relationship, lack of legislative protection, stereotyped thinking about gender roles and undervaluing of this type of employment. Recalling the large number of migrant workers in the country, the Committee urges the Government to take steps to ensure that migrant workers have effective legal protection against discrimination in employment and occupation, in particular based on race, colour, religion or sex. The Committee also hopes that the provisions on domestic workers in the new Labour Code will provide effective rights and protection, including addressing the under-valuation and disadvantaged position of these workers. The Committee also requests information on the status of the follow-up to the study on the alternatives to the sponsorship system as well as information on any other studies dealing with the situation of migrant workers. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the following:

(i)    the number and nature of complaints filed by migrant workers or detected by labour inspectors, in particular relating to domestic workers, the sanctions imposed and the remedies provided;

(ii)   the number of migrant workers that have successfully applied to transfer to another employer pursuant to Order No. 79, indicating the reasons for granting such a change; and

(iii) whether and to what extent the labour contract between the migrant worker and the employer can limit the right of the worker to transfer to another employer pursuant to Order No. 79.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Article 1 of the Convention. Discrimination on the basis of sex. Sexual harassment. In its previous comments the Committee considered that the provisions of the Penal Code punishing rape and sexual assault may not adequately protect workers against sexual harassment as certain practices or behaviour may not amount to those crimes, but nevertheless constitute discrimination based on sex. The Committee therefore encouraged the Government to take specific measures to define, prohibit and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it will take the necessary steps to enact appropriate regulation on the subject in the future. Recalling its 2002 general observation on the topic, the Committee encourages the Government to take the necessary steps to prevent and prohibit sexual harassment at the workplace. It also urges the Government to take the opportunity of the review of the Labour Code to insert a provision covering this issue.

Article 2. National policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation. The Committee notes from the 2008 concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women that the National Strategy for the Advancement of Women has been adopted (CEDAW/C/BHR/CO/2, 14 November 2008, paragraph 18). The Committee also notes that under this Strategy, the adoption of measures to promote women’s rights and to eliminate traditional stereotypes about the role of women in society is envisaged (ibid., paragraph 22). In this regard, the Committee further notes that a new curriculum including human rights issues has been introduced with a view to empowering women in society, and a cooperation protocol concerning the review of curricula and educational material has been adopted with the purpose of eliminating stereotypical portrayals of women (ibid., paragraph 32). As regards the measures taken to promote the reconciliation of family and work responsibilities, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to pregnancy leave and flexible job opportunities. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken under the National Strategy for the Advancement of Women to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation, including measures designed to overcome traditional stereotypes affecting women’s participation in the labour market, and on the impact of such measures. It also requests the Government to indicate whether any measures are envisaged in this context to facilitate the reconciliation of work and family responsibilities. Please also indicate the steps taken to adopt a national policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment irrespective of race, colour, political opinion, religion, national extraction or social origin.

Equal access of men and women to employment and occupation. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the Ministry of Labour has taken some initiatives to promote women’s access to employment and occupation, including the organization of specific training programmes designed to provide women with the necessary skills to enter the labour market, “especially the occupations which are preferred by [them]”. From the statistics provided by the Government, the Committee also notes that women represent only 16.2 per cent of the total number of paid employees in the private and public sectors and they are mainly concentrated in the education sector where they account for approximately 71 per cent of the workers. The Committee encourages the Government to take measures to foster women’s participation in the labour market and their access to vocational training and employment of their choice. Please provide information on the implementation of these measures and supply statistical information on the distribution of men and women in the different economic sectors, occupational categories and positions, including information on their levels of remuneration.

The Committee notes that the Government has not replied to its previous comments regarding section 63 of the Labour Code (second phrase) which, according to the English translation published by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs provides that “the Minister for Labour and Social Affairs shall make an order prescribing the occupations and jobs in respect of which an employer may offer alternative employment to a female worker because of her marriage”. The Government had previously stated that section 63 of the Labour Code merely prohibits the employer from dismissing female workers due to marriage, pregnancy or giving birth. The Committee requests the Government to ensure that in the revision of the Labour Code the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs is no longer authorized to prescribe occupations and jobs in respect of which an employer may offer alternative employment to female workers because of their marriage. Please also provide full information on any restrictions or exclusion in respect of employment and occupation imposed on women, in law or in practice, due to marriage or family responsibilities.

Public service. Article 3(d). The Committee notes the Government’s previous statement that government employees are covered by the Civil Service Regulations and that a Civil Service Act was being discussed in Parliament. The Committee once again expresses its hope that the Civil Service Act will provide for equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of all aspects of employment, including recruitment, promotion, and allowances and benefits. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Civil Service Regulations and the Civil Service Act, as soon as they are adopted.

Enforcement. The Committee notes from the 2005 concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that several training programmes have been organized for the judiciary and law enforcement officials concerning the promotion and protection of human rights with a special focus on racial discrimination (CERD/C/BHR/CO/7, 14 April 2005, paragraph 6). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether these training programmes specifically address the issue of discrimination in employment and occupation. Please also provide information on any judicial or administrative decisions concerning the application of the principle of the Convention as well as information on any violations in this regard detected by the labour inspectorate, the sanctions imposed and the remedies provided.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Legislative protection. In its previous comments, the Committee raised doubts about the effectiveness of the legal protection available in the country to victims of work-related discrimination. The Committee noted, in particular, that article 18 of the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or colour and it does not appear to protect non-nationals from discrimination on the grounds listed in the Convention. This may leave the many foreign workers living in the country without legal protection from discriminatory treatment. Noting that the Labour Code for the private sector was being revised, the Committee thus encouraged the Government to introduce in the Code an explicit definition, as well as an express prohibition of discrimination in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Labour Code for the private sector applies equally to all workers in the Kingdom, irrespective of their sex or nationality. The Committee considers, however, that the insertion in the labour legislation of an explicit provision prohibiting discrimination with respect to all the grounds set forth in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention would ensure a more direct and effective application of the Convention. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will introduce in the new Labour Code provisions explicitly defining and prohibiting direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of all the grounds enumerated in Article 1(1)(a) of the Convention and in respect of all aspects of employment. Please provide information on any further developments concerning the status of the new Labour Code for the private sector and provide a copy once it has been adopted.

Migrant workers. The Committee understands that Bahrain is receiving a growing number of migrant workers, mainly from Asia and some African countries, who are employed for the most part in domestic work, as well as in the entertainment and construction industries. The Committee notes from the 2005 concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) that migrant workers are facing serious discrimination in the enjoyment of their social, economic and cultural rights, especially as regards employment (CERD/C/BHR/CO/7, 14 April 2005, paragraph 14). Moreover, recalling that domestic workers’ employment relations fall outside the scope of the Labour Code, the Committee notes that women migrant domestic workers are particularly vulnerable to abuses and discrimination. In addition, the Committee notes the concerns expressed by the UN Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, about the effects of the sponsorship system in force in the country and its distortions resulting in an unequal distribution of power between employers and migrant workers, which increases the possibility of migrant workers being abused and exploited (A/HRC/4/23/Add.2, 25 April 2007, paragraph 62ff.). The Committee notes that this state of dependency of migrant workers on their employers seriously affects the enjoyment of their labour rights and exposes them to discriminatory practices. The Committee also notes that because of this system, migrant workers are often reluctant to make formal complaints against their employers. The Committee notes that in the context of the review of the Labour Code the abolition of the sponsorship system is envisaged (ibid., paragraph 64). The Committee further notes from the Government’s report that the new draft Labour Code, currently before the National Assembly, will cover some categories of workers previously excluded from the application of the Labour Code with respect to certain aspects of labour relations, including weekly rest and compensation following unfair dismissal. The Committee requests the Government to:

(i)    examine the current situation of migrant workers with a view to identifying the most effective measures to be taken in order to prevent and address the multiple discrimination in employment and occupation, based on race, colour, religion or sex, of which migrant workers, especially women migrant domestic workers, are victims, and report on the steps taken in this regard;

(ii)   provide information on the number and nature of any relevant complaints filed by migrant workers, especially domestic workers, before the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, as well as on any relevant violations detected by the labour inspectorate, the sanctions imposed and the remedies provided;

(iii) provide information on any developments concerning the abolition of the sponsorship system; and

(iv)  consider extending the scope of the Labour Code provisions to domestic workers, casual workers and agricultural workers.

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

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

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that a draft Labour Code for the private sector has been submitted to Parliament for discussion and that the revision process has taken into consideration all comments made by the Committee of Experts. The Committee further notes that the Government’s very brief report contains no reply to its previous comments. It hopes that the new Labour Code will take into account the relevant points raised by the Committee regarding the application in law of the Convention, and that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. Article 1 of the Convention. Application in law. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s clarification in respect of article 18 of the Constitution that the term “origin” is intended to cover both social and national origin and that the term “creed” covers political and religious creed. The Government also reiterates its view that non-discrimination in employment was ensured by the fact that the provisions of the Labour Code equally applied to all workers, regardless of nationality, sex, religion, political convictions or any other ground referred to in Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that a dismissal on discriminatory grounds would be considered as dismissal without legitimate reason under section 110 of the Labour Code. Noting from the Government’s report that no cases concerning discrimination in employment or occupation have been brought before the courts, the Committee is of the view that this raises doubt as to the effectiveness of legal protection currently available for work-related discrimination. It also draws to the Government’s attention that article 18 of the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and colour and that it does not appear to protect non-nationals from discrimination on the grounds listed in the Convention, which may leave the many foreign workers living in the country without legal protection from such treatment. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to review and amend the labour legislation with a view to introducing an explicit definition and prohibition of discrimination in accordance with the Convention. Such a prohibition should cover all the grounds of discrimination referred to in the Convention, all aspects of employment, including recruitment, access to vocational training, all terms and conditions of employment, and dismissal. Please keep the Committee informed of any measures taken in this regard.

2. Recalling its previous comments concerning the exclusion of domestic workers, casual workers and agricultural workers from the scope of the Labour Code, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that these workers were protected under civil law. In addition, some provisions of the Labour Code applied to them and they had the right to submit complaints to the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions of the Labour Code and other relevant legislation that apply to domestic workers, casual workers and agricultural workers and the number and nature of complaints lodged by these workers with the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.

3. Discrimination on the basis of sex. Sexual harassment. Recalling its 2002 general observation on this issue, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that sexual harassment is prohibited under the Penal Code. Noting that the Penal Code establishes the crimes of rape and sexual assault, the Committee considers that these provisions may not provide adequate protection against sexual harassment at the workplace, as certain practices or behaviour may not amount to such crimes, but nevertheless constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any cases of sexual harassment in the workplace have been brought before the courts under the relevant provisions of the Penal Code. It encourages the Government to take specific measures to define, prohibit and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

4. Article 2. National policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that at present there is no specific policy on equal opportunities in employment and occupation but that the Government has endeavoured to strengthen legal texts with respect to equality between men and women. The Committee also notes from the seventh periodic report submitted by the Government under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD/C/4432/Add.1, 22 September 2004, paragraph 18) that a Higher Council for Women was established in November 2003. The Council has the task, inter alia, of elaborating a national plan for the advancement of women. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in the adoption and implementation of the envisaged action plan for the advancement of women and hopes that the action plan will contain specific measures to promote women’s equality in education, training and employment and occupation. The Committee also asks the Government to indicate the steps taken to adopt a national policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment on the grounds of race, colour, political opinion, religion, national extraction, and social origin.

5. Equal access of men and women to employment and occupation. The Committee recalls its previous comments concerning article 5(b) of the Constitution, which provides that the State guarantees reconciliation of the duties of women towards the family with their work in society. The Committee considered that there was some possible tension between this provision and the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment. In reply, the Government states that granting certain rights to women due to the nature of their social role in the family was not contrary to the principle of equality of men and women. The Committee notes that special measures to assist workers to reconcile family and work duties are indeed welcome. However, the adoption of such measures should bear witness to the recognition that family responsibilities are relevant to the family and society and not solely to women; therefore, efforts must be made to avoid stereotypical treatment of women that in practice may result in their direct or indirect discrimination in employment and occupation. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken to assist women in reconciling work and family responsibilities.

6. In this context, the Committee notes from the documentation supplied by the Government that various forms of discrimination against women in employment and occupation exist in practice, for instance with respect to access to vocational training and career advancement. It also notes that according to estimates for 2001 by the Central Statistic Organization the labour participation rate of Bahraini women was as low as 10.9 per cent, as compared to 44.7 per cent among Bahraini men. The Committee asks the Government to supply information on any measures taken to actively promote and ensure women’s equality of opportunity in respect of access to employment and occupation. While welcoming the Government’s commitment and activities to enhance the vocational efficiency of workers through skills development and training, it asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to promote equal participation of men and women in the broadest possible range of occupations, including regarding occupations that have been traditionally carried out by men. It also requests the Government to elaborate on the law and practice with regard to women’s access to judicial posts.

7. Further, the Committee refers once again to section 63 of the Labour Code (second phrase) which, according to the English translation published by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs provides that “the Minister for Labour and Social Affairs shall make an order prescribing the occupations and jobs in respect of which an employer may offer alternative employment to a female worker because of her marriage”. However, the Government states that section 63 of the Labour Code merely prohibits the employer from dismissing female workers due to marriage, pregnancy or giving birth. The Committee requests the Government to confirm that section 63 has been amended to the effect that it no longer authorizes the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs to prescribe occupations and jobs in respect of which an employer may offer alternative employment to female workers because of their marriage, and to provide full information on any restrictions or exclusion in respect of employment and occupation imposed on women, in law or in practice, due to marriage or family responsibilities. Please also indicate whether any orders have been issued under section 65 of the Labour Code with respect to the employment of women and their conditions of work and to provide the text of any such order.

8. Article 3(d). Public employment. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that government employees are covered by the Civil Service Regulations and that a Civil Service Act was being discussed in Parliament. The Committee hopes that the Civil Service Act will provide for equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of all aspects of employment, including recruitment, promotion, and allowances and benefits. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Civil Service Regulations and the Civil Service Act, as soon as promulgated.

9. Article 4. Measures affecting persons justifiably suspected of, or engaged in, activities prejudicial to the security of the State. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any legislative or administrative measure that may have been taken concerning persons justifiably suspected, or engaged in, activities prejudicial to the security of the State, which may restrict these persons’ access to employment and occupation, and the procedural remedies available to challenge such action.

10. Part V of the report form. Statistical information. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistics, disaggregated by sex, on the distribution of men and women (nationals and non-nationals) in the various areas of economic activities and occupations in the public and private sectors, as well as in the different areas of vocational training.

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

1. Article 1 of the Convention. Application in law. The Committee notes the Government’s clarification in respect of article 18 of the Constitution that the term "origin" is intended to cover both social and national origin and that the term "creed" covers political and religious creed. The Government also reiterates its view that non-discrimination in employment was ensured by the fact that the provisions of the Labour Code equally applied to all workers, regardless of nationality, sex, religion, political convictions or any other ground referred to in Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that a dismissal on discriminatory grounds would be considered as dismissal without legitimate reason under section 110 of the Labour Code. Noting from the Government’s report that no cases concerning discrimination in employment or occupation have been brought before the courts, the Committee is of the view that this raises doubt as to the effectiveness of legal protection currently available for work-related discrimination. It also draws to the Government’s attention that article 18 of the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and colour and that it does not appear to protect non-nationals from discrimination on the grounds listed in the Convention, which may leave the many foreign workers living in the country without legal protection from such treatment. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to review and amend the labour legislation with a view to introducing an explicit definition and prohibition of discrimination in accordance with the Convention. Such a prohibition should cover all the grounds of discrimination referred to in the Convention, all aspects of employment, including recruitment, access to vocational training, all terms and conditions of employment, and dismissal. Please keep the Committee informed of any measures taken in this regard.

2. Recalling its previous comments concerning the exclusion of domestic workers, casual workers and agricultural workers from the scope of the Labour Code, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that these workers were protected under civil law. In addition, some provisions of the Labour Code applied to them and they had the right to submit complaints to the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions of the Labour Code and other relevant legislation that apply to domestic workers, casual workers and agricultural workers and the number and nature of complaints lodged by these workers with the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs.

3. Discrimination on the basis of sex. Sexual harassment. Recalling its 2002 general observation on this issue, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that sexual harassment is prohibited under the Penal Code. Noting that the Penal Code establishes the crimes of rape and sexual assault, the Committee considers that these provisions may not provide adequate protection against sexual harassment at the workplace, as certain practices or behaviour may not amount to such crimes, but nevertheless constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether any cases of sexual harassment in the workplace have been brought before the courts under the relevant provisions of the Penal Code. It encourages the Government to take specific measures to define, prohibit and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

4. Article 2. National policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment in employment and occupation. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that at present there is no specific policy on equal opportunities in employment and occupation but that the Government has endeavoured to strengthen legal texts with respect to equality between men and women. The Committee also notes from the seventh periodic report submitted by the Government under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD/C/4432/Add.1, 22 September 2004, paragraph 18) that a Higher Council for Women was established in November 2003. The Council has the task, inter alia, of elaborating a national plan for the advancement of women. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in the adoption and implementation of the envisaged action plan for the advancement of women and hopes that the action plan will contain specific measures to promote women’s equality in education, training and employment and occupation. The Committee also asks the Government to indicate the steps taken to adopt a national policy to promote equality of opportunity and treatment on the grounds of race, colour, political opinion, religion, national extraction, and social origin.

5. Equal access of men and women to employment and occupation. The Committee recalls its previous comments concerning article 5(b) of the Constitution, which provides that the State guarantees reconciliation of the duties of women towards the family with their work in society. The Committee considered that there was some possible tension between this provision and the principle of equality of opportunity and treatment. In reply, the Government states that granting certain rights to women due to the nature of their social role in the family was not contrary to the principle of equality of men and women. The Committee notes that special measures to assist workers to reconcile family and work duties are indeed welcome. However, the adoption of such measures should bear witness to the recognition that family responsibilities are relevant to the family and society and not solely to women; therefore, efforts must be made to avoid stereotypical treatment of women that in practice may result in their direct or indirect discrimination in employment and occupation. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken to assist women in reconciling work and family responsibilities.

6. In this context, the Committee notes from the documentation supplied by the Government that various forms of discrimination against women in employment and occupation exist in practice, for instance with respect to access to vocational training and career advancement. It also notes that according to estimates for 2001 by the Central Statistic Organization the labour participation rate of Bahraini women was as low as 10.9 per cent, as compared to 44.7 per cent among Bahraini men. The Committee asks the Government to supply information on any measures taken to actively promote and ensure women’s equality of opportunity in respect of access to employment and occupation. While welcoming the Government’s commitment and activities to enhance the vocational efficiency of workers through skills development and training, it asks the Government to provide information on the measures taken to promote equal participation of men and women in the broadest possible range of occupations, including regarding occupations that have been traditionally carried out by men. It also requests the Government to elaborate on the law and practice with regard to women’s access to judicial posts.

7. Further, the Committee refers once again to section 63 of the Labour Code (second phrase) which, according to the English translation published by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs provides that "the Minister for Labour and Social Affairs shall make an order prescribing the occupations and jobs in respect of which an employer may offer alternative employment to a female worker because of her marriage". However, the Government states that section 63 of the Labour Code merely prohibits the employer from dismissing female workers due to marriage, pregnancy or giving birth. The Committee requests the Government to confirm that section 63 has been amended to the effect that it no longer authorizes the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs to prescribe occupations and jobs in respect of which an employer may offer alternative employment to female workers because of their marriage, and to provide full information on any restrictions or exclusion in respect of employment and occupation imposed on women, in law or in practice, due to marriage or family responsibilities. Please also indicate whether any orders have been issued under section 65 of the Labour Code with respect to the employment of women and their conditions of work and to provide the text of any such order.

8. Article 3(d). Public employment. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that government employees are covered by the Civil Service Regulations and that a Civil Service Act was being discussed in Parliament. The Committee hopes that the Civil Service Act will provide for equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of all aspects of employment, including recruitment, promotion, and allowances and benefits. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Civil Service Regulations and the Civil Service Act, as soon as promulgated.

9. Article 4. Measures affecting persons justifiably suspected of, or engaged in, activities prejudicial to the security of the State. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any legislative or administrative measure that may have been taken concerning persons justifiably suspected, or engaged in, activities prejudicial to the security of the State, which may restrict these persons’ access to employment and occupation, and the procedural remedies available to challenge such action.

10. Part V of the report form. Statistical information. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistics, disaggregated by sex, on the distribution of men and women (nationals and non-nationals) in the various areas of economic activities and occupations in the public and private sectors, as well as in the different areas of vocational training.

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

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s first and second reports as well as the attached documentation and statistics. It requests the Government to provide information on the following points.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that some of the grounds of prohibited discrimination mentioned in article 18 of the Constitution differ, at least in the translation available in the Office, from the grounds contained in the Convention. Specifically, the Committee asks the Government if the term "origin" covers social origin and/or national extraction, and whether the term "creed" covers political opinion. Noting that no mention is made of the grounds of colour and race, the Committee asks the Government how discrimination in employment and occupation is prohibited on these grounds.

2. The Committee notes the Government’s assurance that the Labour Code for the private sector prohibits discrimination on the same grounds as those prohibited by the Constitution. However, the Committee also notes that the Code does not explicitly contain either a prohibition of discrimination or a definition of discrimination. Accordingly, the Committee asks the Government to give consideration to reviewing the Code with a view to introducing such an explicit prohibition, with respect to all the Convention’s grounds.

3. The Committee notes that the Bahraini Constitution recognizes the equal human dignity of all persons, and that it guarantees, as to citizens, equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination based on sex, origin, language, religion or creed. However, the Committee also notes there is some possible tension between article 5 and article 18 so far as equal employment opportunities for women are concerned. Accordingly, it asks the Government to provide information as to how article 5 is applied in practice.

4. The Committee notes that the Code does not apply to government workers, and it accordingly asks the Government if there exists any other legislation specifically relating to such employees, and how discrimination is prohibited in accordance with the Convention. The Committee requests, in this regard, that the Government forward copies of the Civil and Military Regulations, as well as any other pertinent legislation.

5. The Committee notes that the Code does not apply to domestic servants, casual workers and many agricultural workers. Taking into account the large number of non-nationals working in the country, the Committee asks the Government to indicate how these workers are protected against discrimination.

6. The Committee notes that the Code prohibits dismissals "without legitimate reason", and asks the Government if, under the Code, a dismissal based on any of the grounds of discrimination contained in the Convention would be counted as a dismissal without legitimate reason.

7. Referring to its general observation of 2002, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on how sexual harassment is prohibited and prevented in employment and occupation.

8. Article 2. The Committee notes with appreciation the Government’s strong commitment to equal employment opportunities and the elimination of workplace discrimination, as expressed in its reports. It points out, however, that the reports contain little information as to any national policy of the sort required under Article 2 of the Convention. The Government is therefore requested to forward any information as to the existence and the nature of such a policy.

9. The Committee notes with interest the creation of the Committee for Human Rights. It asks the Government to provide information regarding the Committee’s activities and programmes specifically concerning anti-discrimination in employment, including any inquiries or recommendations it may have made regarding the impact of existing national legislation on the employment opportunities of women.

10. Article 3. The Committee notes the various Code provisions and related Ministerial Orders providing for a range of vocational training activities. In relation to these, it asks the Government for information regarding: (a) the activities of the High Council for Vocational Training, including its determination of training needs, its implementation of training programmes, and details as to the activities of any training institutes and centres created by it; (b) the activities and programmes carried out by qualitative councils for vocational training; and (c) vocational training provided for workers in the public sector. Additionally, the Government is requested to provide specific information on any policies and practices relating to these vocational training efforts that seek to ensure that the needs of groups subject to potential discrimination on any of the Convention’s grounds are taken into account.

11. The Committee notes that section 63 of the Labour Code permits an employer to offer "alternative employment to a female worker because of her marriage". It would be grateful if the Government were to indicate what this provision means, and how it is applied in practice. Noting also that section 65 of the Labour Code empowers the Minister for Labour and Social Affairs to make further orders "in respect of the employment of females and their conditions of work", the Committee request copies of any such Orders.

12. Article 4. The Committee asks the Government to provide relevant information regarding how compliance with Article 4 of the Convention is ensured.

13. Parts III and IV of the report form. The Committee asks the Government whether persons suffering from discrimination in employment prohibited by the Constitution may seek redress in the Constitutional Court, and if, in addition, they may have recourse to other courts on the same matters. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide information regarding any decisions by any such courts, as well as regarding any administrative rulings, that relate to matters of discrimination on any of the Convention’s grounds.

14. Part V of the report form. The Committee notes with some concern the disparity in labour force participation between women and men, both nationals and non-nationals. It therefore asks the Government for information regarding potential obstacles that women, as compared to men, might meet in attempting to obtain employment, to win advancement, and to avoid unjustified dismissals. At the same time, the Committee asks the Government to provide information about any initiatives it may have undertaken or that are being planned, legislative or otherwise, to encourage the hiring, promotion, and retention of women, in both the public and private sectors.

15. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s participation in the National Gender Statistics Programme. It asks the Government to provide any statistics developed pursuant to this participation (or any other applicable statistics), disaggregated by sex, regarding: (1) the relative proportion of women in public and private employment, broken down by type of position and category of work; and (2) proportions of women, relative to men and relative to women in the labour force, hired, promoted, dismissed, and receiving vocational training, in both the public and private sectors. In the event that the Government has not collected statistics of this sort, the Committee asks the Government to work towards developing such statistics. Please also indicate if the Government is considering collecting statistics, disaggregated at least by ethnicity and national origin, regarding hirings, promotions, dismissals, and vocational training of non-Bahrainis in the labour force.