Allegations: The complainant organization alleges anti-union actions by the
management of the Pearl Continental Hotel Karachi and the failure of the Government to
ensure the principles of freedom of association as set out in the ILO Constitution and
Conventions Nos 87 and 98
- 390. The Committee last examined this case at its June 2014 meeting when
it presented an interim report to the Governing Body [see 372nd Report, approved by the
Governing Body at its 321st Session (June 2014), paras 474–497].
- 391. The complainant organization, International Union of Food,
Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations
(IUF), submitted additional observations in a communication dated 7 April 2015.
- 392. At its March 2015 meeting [see 374th Report, para. 6], the Committee
issued an urgent appeal indicating that, in accordance with the procedural rules set out
in paragraph 17 of its 127th Report, approved by the Governing Body, it could present a
report on the substance of the case at its next meeting, even if the information or
observations requested from the Government had not been received in due time. To date,
the Government has not sent any information in this regard.
- 393. Pakistan has ratified 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).
A. Previous examination of the case
A. Previous examination of the case- 394. In its previous examination of the case, the Committee made the
following recommendations [see 372nd Report, para. 497]:
- (a)
The Committee urges the Government to provide its observations on the complainant’s
serious allegations without further delay.
- (b) In light of
the principles enounced in its conclusions, the Committee expects the Government to
make every effort to ensure respect for these principles in the aforementioned hotel
establishment. In particular, as it has done in previous cases concerning Pakistan,
the Committee requests the Government to institute immediately an independent
inquiry into the following allegations: (i) the harassment of union members; (ii)
the acts of violence on 25 February and 13 March 2013 against several union members,
General Secretary Ghulam Mehboob and workers participating in a strike; (iii) the
subsequent brief arrest of 50 union officers and members and filing of criminal
charges against them; and (iv) the anti-union dismissals of 62 union officers and
members following the strike; with a view to fully clarifying the facts, determining
responsibilities, punishing those responsible and preventing the repetition of such
acts. The Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of this
investigation and to keep it informed of any follow-up or redress measures taken. It
firmly expects that, should it be found that these unionists were dismissed or
charged for the exercise of legitimate trade union activities, the Government will
take all necessary steps to ensure their swift reinstatement in their previous
positions without loss of pay and the immediate dropping of all pending criminal
charges.
- (c) The Committee requests the Government to make
efforts to obtain the comments of the company, via the employers’ organization
concerned, so that the Committee may examine the allegations in this case in full
knowledge of the facts.
B. Additional information from the complainant
B. Additional information from the complainant- 395. In its communication dated 7 April 2015, the IUF provides
observations on the developments occurring since its last communication of 8 April 2013
[see 372nd Report, paras 477–488].
- 396. With respect to the anti-union dismissals, as reported under Case
No. 2169, the complainant indicates that 21 union officers and members are still
awaiting reinstatement more than two years after the definitive court order by the Sindh
Labour Appellate Tribunal on 15 January 2013, which the Government refuses to enforce.
Five workers have reached retirement age and one has died while awaiting reinstatement.
Over the next few years, many more will reach retirement age without having obtained
justice.
- 397. With respect to union member Shazia Nosheen, who was detained by
hotel management on 25 February 2013 and pressured to sign a false statement, she is
still on bail as her case is still pending in court. With respect to the 13 March 2013
mass arrests of union members and officers, police filed charges against 47 members and
union officers, including five members of the union Executive, charging them with an
illegal presence at the hotel, although they were legally employed by the hotel
according to the terms of the reinstatement order, as noted above. The complainant adds
that the case continues and the accused union members are required to present themselves
in court on a monthly basis. The complainant considers that this is yet another instance
where police and courts are being used to frustrate the implementation of the
Committee’s recommendations and reinstatement decisions of the Labour Court. The
complainant states that management of the hotel still refuses to recognize the union and
enter into good faith collective bargaining negotiations, and the Government refuses to
effectively ensure basic rights and recognition to the union.
- 398. With respect to the 20 March 2013 stay orders of the National
Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) prohibiting hotel management from taking any
action against 62 workers, only 7 have been allowed to return to work and 47 are still
seeking to return to work after being refused entry by security guards.
- 399. The complainant is of the view that the following sequence of events
illustrates the numerous legal and other barriers workers have been forced to endure
since the complaint was lodged. On 1 April 2013, hotel management wrote to the union’s
General Secretary Ghulam Mehboob indicating that it refused to accept the NIRC order and
denying that any workers were prevented from entering the hotel. The General Secretary
replied on 6 April 2013 stating that workers were denied entry by hotel security and
were obliged to sit outside the hotel gate. On 8 April 2013, the NIRC instructed the
hotel to allow workers to perform their duties; on 9–10 April 2013, the union’s General
Secretary wrote to the hotel informing management that 62 workers were denied access to
their workplaces and payment of their salaries in violation of the NIRC orders.
- 400. On 18 April 2013, workers once again informed the NIRC that they
were denied entry to the hotel, were unable to perform their duties and were not
receiving their salaries. The NIRC responded by instructing management to release these
workers’ salaries and to allow them to enter the premises to perform their jobs; the
Assistant Director of Labour from the provincial ministry would accompany the workers
into the hotel. Management of the hotel allowed 30 workers out of 62 to come inside the
gate, but they were then told to sit in the parking area, where they remained for one
week. On 26 April 2013, management applied to the NIRC to put these 30 workers on
‘special leave’; the request was granted. The remaining 32 workers were not taken on
duty, although the hotel management presented nothing in writing. Employment was
terminated with regard to six of the 32 workers by verbal communication because they
were third party contract workers; their cases are pending at the NIRC. There were no
sessions of the Karachi NIRC from May to October 2013.
- 401. On 31 October 2013, workers wrote to the NIRC stating that they were
not being paid their full compensation (gratuities and bonuses). The NIRC instructed the
hotel management to pay the employees their full salaries, but management failed to
implement the order. On 8 November 2013, workers filed a complaint with the NIRC stating
that, despite the stay orders, hotel management was not allowing them to work. The NIRC
directed the General Manager of the hotel to appear in court. The union’s General
Secretary wrote to the hotel management on 19 November 2013 demanding implementation of
the 31 October 2013 order. The union President wrote to management on 20 November 2013
requesting the hotel to pay the arrears in the obligatory annual pay increment. The
hotel management did not respond to the communication.
- 402. On 14 February 2014 and on 1 April 2014, workers who were stopped at
the hotel gate from entering the premises each wrote separate letters to management
protesting their lack of access in defiance of the stay orders and requesting legal
entitlements due to them as employees. Management did not respond to these
communications. On 19 May 2014, hotel management transferred the 12 workers barred from
entering the hotel to Pearl Continental facilities in Peshawar, Muzzafarabad and
Rawalpindi. Eleven of these workers wrote to the NIRC on 3 June 2014; the NIRC stopped
the transfer orders and requested a response from management.
- 403. On 26 August 2014, a hearing on the case involving the Pearl
Continental workers was held at the NIRC which the General Manager of the hotel
attended. The General Manager promised to resolve the outstanding issues within 15 days.
At the NIRC hearing of 17 September 2014, the Human Resources Director stated that the
General Manager had been transferred and that other issues were being discussed by the
Board of Directors. NIRC sessions of 12 and 27 November were adjourned because
management did not respond on the outcome of the meeting of the Board of Directors.
- 404. On 16 December 2014, the NIRC ordered the payment of salaries to
union officers and members who were reinstated by orders of the appeal tribunal and
labour court. The hotel did not respond to a communication from the union demanding
compliance with the decision. On 20 January 2015, 17 workers were barred from entering
the hotel by security and 27 workers were put on ‘special leave’ to receive only the
base salary rather than the full compensation to which they are legally entitled.
- 405. In the complainant’s view, despite the clear decisions rendered by
the NIRC and the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, the police and other branches of the
judicial system have colluded with the Pearl Continental Hotel Karachi management to
prevent the implementation of these decisions as well as the recommendations of the
Committee.
- 406. The complainant states that the information provided in its
communication demonstrates the Government’s failure to comply with the letter and spirit
of the ILO’s recommendations as well as complicity in ongoing rights violations.
Flagrant violations of freedom of association continue and the complainant therefore
calls on the Committee to respond firmly and appropriately.
- 407. The complainant adds that there has been essentially one
uninterrupted sequence of violations of freedom of association over 14 years at the
Pearl Continental Hotel Karachi. The IUF therefore urgently calls on the Committee to
recall to the Government of Pakistan its obligations.
C. The Committee’s conclusions
C. The Committee’s conclusions- 408. The Committee deeply regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed
since the complaint was presented in April 2013, the Government has still not replied to
the complainant’s allegations, despite having been invited on several occasions to do
so, including by means of two urgent appeals [see 371st and 374th Reports, para.
6].
- 409. In these circumstances and in accordance with the applicable
procedural rules [see 127th Report, para. 17, approved by the Governing Body at its
184th Session (1972)], the Committee finds itself obliged to present, once again, a
report on the substance of the case without being able to take into account of the
information it hoped to receive from the Government.
- 410. The Committee reminds the Government that the purpose of the whole
procedure established by the International Labour Organization for the examination of
allegations of violations of freedom of association is to promote respect for this
freedom in law and in practice. The Committee remains confident that, while the
procedure protects governments from unreasonable accusations, governments, on their
side, will recognize the importance of presenting, for objective examination, detailed
replies concerning allegations made against them [see First Report, para. 31].
- 411. The Committee recalls that this case concerns serious allegations of
anti-union actions by the management of the Pearl Continental Hotel Karachi and the
failure by the Government to ensure that Conventions Nos 87 and 98 are applied in
practice.
- 412. With regard to the anti-union dismissals which were examined under
Case No. 2169, the Committee notes the complainant’s indication that 21 union officers
and members are still awaiting reinstatement more than two years after the definitive
court order by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal on 15 January 2013. It notes that
five workers have reached retirement age and one has died while awaiting reinstatement.
The Committee recalls in this regard the principle that justice delayed is justice
denied [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee,
fifth (revised) edition, 2006, para. 105].
- 413. The Committee further recalls the allegations of this present case
which were examined at its June 2014 meeting [see 372nd Report, para. 493] and notes the
additional information provided on the following acts: (i) union member Shazia Nosheen
was detained by hotel management and pressured to sign a false statement on 25 February
2013 and is still on bail with her court case still pending; (ii) police arrested union
officers and members on 13 March 2013 and charges were filed against 47 of them,
including five members of the union Executive, for an illegal presence at the hotel,
although, the union officers were legally employed by the hotel according to the terms
of the reinstatement order; (iii) while stay orders were issued by the NIRC on 20 March
2013 prohibiting hotel management from taking any action against 62 union officers and
members, only 7 have been allowed to return to work while 47 are still seeking to return
to work after being refused entry by security guards.
- 414. The Committee expresses its concern at the latest allegations of
anti-union actions at the hotel establishment and refusal to abide by court and NIRC
orders. In particular, the Committee notes the allegations communicated by the
complainant on the sequence of events between April 2013 and January 2015, which include
the following: (i) on 1 April 2013, hotel management wrote to the union’s General
Secretary Ghulam Mehboob indicating that it refused to accept the NIRC order and denying
that any workers were prevented from entering the hotel; (ii) on 9–10 April 2013, the
union’s General Secretary wrote to the hotel informing management that 62 workers were
denied access to their workplaces and payment of their salaries in violation of NIRC
orders; (iii) on 18 April 2013, workers once again informed the NIRC that they were
denied entry to the hotel, were unable to perform their duties and were not receiving
their salaries; (iv) the NIRC responded by instructing management to release these
workers’ salaries and to allow them to enter the premises to perform their jobs (the
Assistant Director of Labour from the provincial ministry would accompany the workers
into the hotel); (v) management of the hotel allowed 30 workers out of 62 to come inside
the gate, but they were then told to sit in the parking area, where they remained for
one week; (vi) on 26 April 2013, management applied to the NIRC to put these 30 workers
on ‘special leave’; the request was granted (the remaining 32 workers were not taken on
duty, although the hotel management presented nothing in writing. Employment was
terminated with regard to six of the 32 workers by verbal communication because they
were third party contract workers (their cases are pending at the NIRC); (vii) on 31
October 2013, workers wrote to the NIRC stating that they were not being paid their full
compensation (gratuities and bonuses) and, thereafter, the NIRC instructed the hotel
management to pay the employees their full salaries, but management failed to implement
the order, despite written complaints filed by workers; (viii) on 14 February 2014 and
on 1 April 2014, workers who were stopped at the hotel gate from entering the premises
each wrote separate letters to management protesting their lack of access in defiance of
the stay orders and requesting legal entitlements due to them as employees. Management
did not respond to these communications; (ix) on 19 May 2014, hotel management
transferred 12 workers barred from entering the hotel to Pearl Continental facilities in
Peshawar, Muzzafarabad and Rawalpindi. Eleven of these workers wrote to the NIRC on 3
June 2014; the NIRC stopped the transfer orders and requested a response from
management.
- 415. The Committee further notes that, on 26 August 2014, a hearing on
the case involving the hotel workers was held at the NIRC in the attendance of the
General Manager of the hotel. The General Manager promised to resolve the outstanding
issues within 15 days. At the NIRC hearing of 17 September 2014, the Human Resources
Director stated that the General Manager had been transferred and that other issues were
being discussed by the Board of Directors. NIRC sessions of 12 and 27 November were
adjourned because management did not respond on the outcome of the meeting of the Board
of Directors.
- 416. On 16 December 2014, the NIRC ordered the payment of salaries to
union officers and members who were reinstated by orders of the appeal tribunal and
labour court. The hotel did not respond to a communication from the union demanding
compliance with the decision. On 20 January 2015, 17 workers were barred from entering
the hotel by security and 27 workers were put on ‘special leave’ to receive only the
base salary rather than the full compensation to which they are legally entitled.
- 417. In the absence of the Government’s reply, the Committee recalls its
previous recommendations and urges the Government to institute the necessary independent
inquiries and to provide detailed information without delay. Finally, as regards the
actions against union officers and members, including dismissals and refusing entry for
reinstated workers, the Committee, noting the definitive decision rendered by the Sindh
Labour Appellate Tribunal on 15 January 2013 and the numerous orders of the NIRC,
including orders of 20 March 2013 and 31 October 2013, firmly expects that the
Government will take all necessary steps for their immediate enforcement, thus ensuring
the reinstatement of the workers in question, compensation for lost wages and any
damages suffered. The Committee wishes to recall in this respect that the ultimate
responsibility for ensuring respect for the principles of freedom of association lies
with the Government [see Digest, op. cit., para. 17].
The Committee’s recommendations
The Committee’s recommendations- 418. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee
invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
- (a) The
Committee deeply regrets that, despite the time that has elapsed since the complaint
was presented in April 2013, the Government has still not replied to the
complainant’s allegations, despite having been invited on several occasions to do
so, including by means of two urgent appeals [see 371st and 374th Reports, para. 6].
The Committee urges the Government to provide its observations on the complainant’s
serious allegations without further delay.
- (b) The Committee urges the
Government to institute immediately an independent inquiry into the following
allegations: (i) the harassment of union members; (ii) the acts of violence on 25
February and 13 March 2013 against several union members, General Secretary Ghulam
Mehboob and workers participating in a strike; and (iii) the subsequent brief arrest
of union officers and members and filing of criminal charges against 47 of them. The
Committee requests the Government to inform it of the outcome of this investigation
and to keep it informed of any follow-up or redress measures taken.
- (c) As
regards the actions against union officers and members, including dismissals and
refusing entry for reinstated workers, the Committee, noting the definitive decision
rendered by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal on 15 January 2013 and the numerous
orders of the NIRC, including orders of 20 March 2013 and 31 October 2013, firmly
expects that the Government will take all necessary steps for their immediate
enforcement, thus ensuring the reinstatement of the workers in question,
compensation for lost wages and any damages suffered.
- (d) The Committee
expects the Government to make efforts to obtain the comments of the company, via
the employers’ organization concerned, so that the Committee will be in a position
to examine this case in full knowledge of the facts.