Report in which the committee requests to be kept informed of development - Report No 377, March 2016

1. 397. The complaint is set out in communications by the Pakistan Telecom Employees Union (CBA) (PTEU) dated 27 July and 4 September 2011, and 31 January 2012. UNI Global Union associated itself with the complaint in a communication dated 7 June 2011.
2. 398. The Government sent its observations in communications dated 14 March and 7 June 2012, and 11 September 2015.
3. 399. 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. The complainant’s allegations

1. 400. In its communications dated 27 July and 4 September 2011, and 31 January 2012, the PTEU explains that it is a national industry-wide trade union which had been registered with the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) and declared as collective bargaining agent following nationwide referendums. It represents the workers of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd (PTCL). The complainant and UNI Global Union explain that in 2006, the Government partially privatized the said company by selling 26 per cent of its shares to a foreign company, Etisalat International, which also gained management rights through obtaining 53 per cent of the voting rights. As part of the sale, the new management agreed to settlement terms which included that the company would continue to apply pay and allowances, terms and conditions, and other benefits which may be awarded by the Government of Pakistan to government and semi-government employees.
2. 401. According to the PTEU, the company applied the pay rises announced from time to time by the Government after demands were made by the Union to that effect. In 2010, due to severe inflation, the Government announced a 50 per cent increase in basic pay rates. The Union submitted demands for this to be applied to the workers in the PTCL. According to the complainant, the company refused and instead approached the High Court to stop lawful trade union activities. The High Court (Order in W.P. No. 17832/10) ruled against the company and directed the management to conduct negotiations with the Union. The complainant provides a copy of the said order.
3. 402. The PTEU alleges that instead of complying with the Court order, the management filed false cases under the Anti-Terrorism Act against its office bearers, including Mr Hassan Muhammad Rana, Secretary-General. Mr Rana and others were arrested, tried and acquitted. The complainant further submits that the management of the company registered criminal cases against the three office bearers of the Union and transmits a copy of the Court order, dated 24 December 2011, in which the Court considered that the “allegation levelled against the petitioners is groundless, false and baseless as the petitioners were behind the bars [in relation to the arrest under the Anti-Terrorism Act] when the alleged occurrence was stated and there was no involvement of the petitioners in the said occurrence as possible”. The Court acquitted the three office bearers.
4. 403. According to the PTEU and UNI Global Union following a demonstration, the company dismissed/terminated 313 active office bearers, including the Secretary-General, and suspended/show caused more than 250 trade unionists. Those dismissed were PTCL union leaders and members who were active in the campaign for decent work and enforcement of their working conditions. According to the complainant, the company gave no sound reason as to why the workers were either dismissed or suspended and the Government has failed to step in to assist in bringing the parties to the table and ending the impasse even though they are the majority shareholders. The complainant submits a list of 81 trade union officials who were still not reinstated following termination or dismissal.
5. 404. The PTEU further alleges that the company management’s strategy is to “teach a lesson” to the office bearers and trade union activists so that the latter do not indulge in trade union activities. The complainant submits a copy of internal email exchanges regarding five employees whose termination cases were pending adjudication in the Labour Court and five other employees whose salaries were suspended. In the first case, a manager writes “it is also a fact that few are the big heads … and we could not spare them without teaching a proper lesson as per strategy of management”. In the second exchange of emails, concerning employees’ request that their cases for release of salaries be considered sympathetically, the management asked for a certificate confirming that these workers “are not involved in any union activity and affidavit from officials that they will not participate in any sort of union activity”.

B. The Government’s reply

1. 405. In its communications dated 14 March and 7 June 2012 the Government indicates that the management of the company was asked to report on the allegations in this case. According to the Government, the management has informed that Mr Rana was no longer the Secretary General of the complainant organization and that a new Secretary General had been elected. The Government attaches a copy of a communication signed by the new leadership of the PTEU in which the latter explains that Mr Rana lost his position on 18 May 2010 when the majority of the representatives of the PTEU passed a resolution against him for misappropriation of funds. In this communication, addressed to the Central Labour Advisor of the Ministry of Inter Provincial Coordination, Government of Pakistan, the PTEU leadership indicates that the ILO would be informed of the above accordingly.
2. 406. The Government indicates that this matter was referred to the Registrar (NIRC) for inquiry, who has informed that various cases regarding election proceedings and meetings of the General Body of the PTEU are pending in different Benches of the NIRC, and it was up to the parties to pursue their cases. According to the Government, a meeting was held with Mr Rana on 2 March 2012. He confirmed that various cases, including concerning trade union election, were pending before the NIRC. He also informed that cases of unfair labour practice were pending before the labour courts, dismissals and terminations cases were pending in Lahore and Islamabad High Courts, and that Multan Labour Court has decided in favour of the complainant.
3. 407. In its communication dated 11 September 2015, the Government conveys that the NIRC has reported the following progress;
   • – 226 terminated workers have been reinstated;
   • – 39 workers have left the job after receiving their dues;
   • – 17 workers have been reinstated by the High Court. The company has appealed this decision in the Supreme Court; and
   • – 18 cases are still pending before the NIRC. A majority of these cases were settled by the Single Bench of the NIRC, which the company management appealed before the NIRC Full Bench.
4. 408. The Government requests to treat this information as interim and indicates that final decisions will be communicated to the ILO as soon as these cases are concluded.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 409. The Committee notes that the complainant in this case, the Pakistan Telecom Employees Union (CBA) (PTEU), supported by UNI Global Union, alleges, in communications dated 27 July and 4 September 2011, and 31 January 2012, anti-union dismissals and anti-union tactics by the management of the PTCL and the Government’s inability to protect the employees.
2. 410. At the outset, the Committee notes that in its communication dated 14 March 2012, the Government submits that Mr Rana is no longer the Secretary-General of the complainant organization and that a new Secretary General was elected to replace him. The Government attaches a copy of a communication signed by the new leadership of the PTEU in which the latter explains that Mr Rana lost his position on 18 May 2010 when the majority of the Central representatives of the PTEU passed a resolution against him for misappropriation of funds and thus, has no authority to address the ILO on behalf of the Union. In this communication, addressed to the Central Labour Advisor of the Ministry of Inter Provincial Coordination, Government of Pakistan, the PTEU leadership indicates that the ILO would be informed of the above accordingly. The Committee further notes, however, the Government’s indication that cases regarding election procedure and meetings of the General Body of the PTEU were pending before the NIRC. No further information has been provided neither by the Government on the outcome of these cases nor by any PTEU leadership indicating its intention to withdraw the complaint.
3. 411. The Committee notes that according to the PTEU, following the privatisation of the company, the new management refused to apply the pay increase announced by the Government, thereby violating the terms of the settlement reached between the Union and the company under which, the company would continue to apply pay and allowances, terms and conditions, and other benefits which may be awarded by the Government of Pakistan to government and semi-government employees. According to the PTEU, when the High Court directed the management to conduct negotiations with the Union, the company refused and instead filed false cases under the Anti-Terrorism Act against the main office bearers of the union, including Mr Rana, Secretary-General of the Union, and a criminal case against three other officers. According to the complainant, Mr Rana and others were arrested, tried and acquitted.
4. 412. The PTEU also alleges that the company used anti-union tactics and refers, in particular, to cases when the management asked for a certificate confirming that workers were not involved in any union activity before considering whether workers’ salaries could be released.
5. 413. Furthermore, according to the complainant, following a demonstration, the company dismissed/terminated 313 active office bearers, including the Secretary-General, and suspended/show caused more than 250 trade unionists. The complainant submits a list of 81 trade union officials who were still not reinstated following termination or dismissal.
6. 414. In this regard, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its communication dated 11 September 2015 that 226 workers have been reinstated, 39 workers have left the job after receiving their dues; 17 workers have been reinstated by the High Court, but that the company has appealed this decision in the Supreme Court, and that 18 cases were still pending before the NIRC Full Bench following an appeal filed by the company. The Committee notes the Government’s request to treat this information as interim pending the conclusion of these cases.
7. 415. While noting with interest that a certain number of dismissals appear to have been resolved, the Committee regrets to note what appears to have been various tactics to undermine the union and its leadership at the company. Refusal to abide by the privatisation settlement terms; refusal, in violation of a court order, to conduct bona fide negotiation with the union; filing cases against trade union leaders under the Anti-Terrorism Act (repealed); filing criminal charges against trade unionists, which the court later found to be “groundless, false and baseless”; dismissals/terminations, suspensions of trade unionists; and demands of affidavits that employees will not take part in the union activities, appear to demonstrate that the management showed little respect for trade union rights of its employees. This conclusion is supported by the Lahore High Court in Case No: W.P. No. 60 of 2012 (Hassan Muhammad Rana v. PTCL and another), which also deals with another 14 writ petitions involving the same question of law and facts (as related by the complainant in this case). The Committee notes, in particular, paragraphs 14–16 of the said Order (publicly available):
8. 416. The Committee regrets the failure of the Government, as ultimately responsible for ensuring respect for the principles of freedom of association in the country, in general, and as the company majority stakeholder, in particular, to prevent and later to redress fully these violations of trade union rights, including as regards some dismissal cases that date back to 2010 and are still pending. It recalls in this respect that the government is responsible for preventing all acts of anti-union discrimination and it must ensure that complaints of anti-union discrimination are examined in the framework of national procedures which should be prompt, impartial and considered as such by the parties concerned. It further recalls that cases concerning anti-union discrimination contrary to Convention No. 98 should be examined rapidly, so that the necessary remedies can be really effective. An excessive delay in processing cases of anti-union discrimination, and in particular a lengthy delay in concluding the proceedings concerning the reinstatement of the trade union leaders dismissed by the enterprise, constitute a denial of justice and therefore a denial of the trade union rights of the persons concerned [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, paras 817and 826]. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take all appropriate measures, in order to avoid a denial of justice, to ensure that the remaining pending cases are concluded without delay. It requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
9. 417. Noting that the number of trade unionists that the complainant alleges had been dismissed/terminated or suspended differs from the numbers referred to by the Government in its reply, the Committee requests the Government and the complainant to provide detailed information on the number of dismissed/terminated and suspended trade unionists in relation to the events alleged in this case, and their current employment status.