Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2018, publiée 108ème session CIT (2019)

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

Autre commentaire sur C081

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), received on 1 September 2018.

Articles 2, 4 and 23 of the Convention. Labour inspection in export processing zones (EPZs) and special economic zones (SEZs). The Committee recalls its reiterated requests to bring export processing zones (EPZs) and special economic zones (SEZs) under the purview of the labour inspectorate. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the draft EPZ Labour Act (which will also apply to SEZs) has been revisited with a view to including provisions on labour inspection by the national labour inspection service, along with the existing supervision exercised by the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Authority (BEPZA). The Committee also notes that the ITUC criticizes that the new draft EPZ Labour Act continues to entrust the BEPZA with the supervision of labour standards in EPZs. The trade union adds that the BEPZA is an entity primarily interested in protecting investment and not addressing labour law violations of workers. The ITUC states in this respect that there should be no discrimination between workers inside and outside of the zones with respect to their rights. Noting with concern that it has now been more than four years since the request of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (CAS) on this matter, the Committee urges in the strongest terms that the Government complete its revised draft of the EPZ Labour Act in the very near future in order to bring EPZs and SEZs under the purview of the labour inspectorate.

Article 6. Status and conditions of service of labour inspectors. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that retaining labour inspectors within the labour inspection services was a problem and that a number of recently recruited labour inspectors had left the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments (DIFE), after having been trained, to take up work with other government services. It also noted that the labour inspection services offered less favourable career prospects than other government services and requested the Government to review the professional profiles and grades of labour inspectors to ensure that they reflect the career prospects of public servants exercising similar functions within other government services, such as tax inspectors or the police.

The Committee notes the Government’s information provided in a table in reply to the Committee’s request, which shows that the salary of (regular) labour inspectors and tax inspectors are equal, but that police officers receive the same salary as the Assistant Inspector-General (which is one of the highest professional grades in the labour inspection service). The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that a study on the reasons for the high attrition rate, recommended, among other things, the development of the competencies of labour inspection staff and the creation of more senior positions. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the salary and benefit structure applicable to labour inspectors and public servants exercising similar functions within other government services (such as tax inspectors or the police) in the highest professional categories of those services, as well as information on any measures taken or envisaged to align the conditions of service with that of public servants exercising similar functions. It also requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken to implement the recommendations made in the study on the reasons for the high attrition rate, concerning the creation of more senior positions within the labour inspection services.

Articles 7, 10, 11 and 16. Human resources and material resources of the labour inspectorate. Frequency and thoroughness of labour inspections. In its past comments, the Committee welcomed the steady increase in the number of labour inspectors since the Rana Plaza tragedy in 2013. However, it notes with regret that the Government has not provided any new information on the progress made with the recruitment of labour inspectors for the filling of the 575 labour inspection positions approved in 2014. It further notes with concern that the number of labour inspectors decreased from 345 to 320 between 2017 and 2018. The Committee also notes the observations made by the ITUC that the effective enforcement of labour law continues to be absent due to the weakness of the labour inspection system, and that the frequency and quality of labour inspections remain insufficient. The trade union adds that the incidence of fatal occupational accidents remains high in the textile, ship-breaking and stone-crushing industries. The Committee urges the Government to continue to make every effort to recruit an adequate number of qualified labour inspectors, and to fill all of the 575 labour inspection posts that have already been approved in 2014. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the current number of labour inspectors working at the DIFE, as well as on the number of labour inspection visits carried out, including specific information for those industries with high rates of occupational accidents. Noting the information provided by the Government in this respect, the Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the budget, equipment and transport facilities available to the DIFE, and the training provided to labour inspectors.

Articles 12(1), 15(c) and 16. Inspections without previous notice. Duty of confidentiality in relation to complaints. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that in 2014, only 2.5 per cent of all inspections were random or complaints-driven inspections without prior notice. It emphasized that, in light of these extremely low numbers, both the duty of labour inspectors to maintain confidentiality that an inspection was made as a result of a complaint, and the efficiency of inspections, were put at risk. The Committee subsequently noted the Government’s indication that in 2016–17, the percentage of unannounced inspections (i.e. random or complaints-driven inspections implemented without prior notice) had increased to 20 per cent of all inspections, and that the codification of the duty to keep confidential the existence or source of a complaint could be considered in the context of the proposed review of the Bangladesh Labour Act (BLA). The Committee notes that the Government provides information on the total number of inspections and their results, but not the requested information on the results of unannounced inspection visits. The Committee further notes that the Government has not provided the requested information on any measures taken to codify the duty of confidentiality in the national legislation. The Committee once again urges the Government to consider codifying the duty of confidentiality, either in the context of the proposed review of the BLA or in other regulations or guidelines concerning labour inspection, for the purpose of legal certainty. It also requests the Government to provide information on the number of inspection visits that were unannounced and those that were undertaken with prior notice, and once again requests information on the results of unannounced inspections covering investigations of accidents or addressing complaints, including the nature of resolutions reached, violations identified and sanctions applied.

Articles 17 and 18. Legal proceedings, effective enforcement and sufficiently dissuasive penalties. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, in reply to the Committee’s request for statistics, on the number of inspections undertaken and violations detected in the 2017–18 fiscal year (39,710 inspections and 257,904 violations). It notes that in the same period, 1,689 cases were submitted to the labour courts of which 781 were resolved. The Committee notes with concern that the amount of penalties imposed up until May 2018 was Bangladesh Taka (BDT) 2.85 million (approximately US$3,401), which based on the number of cases resolved, appears to be quite low (an average of approximately US$5 per resolution). The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government, in response to its request, that there is one legal officer at the DIFE responsible for the follow-up of labour law violations detected by labour inspectors, that a legal advisory firm is affiliated with the DIFE, and that there is a plan to establish a legal unit at the DIFE. However, the Committee notes with regret that the Government does not provide a reply in response to the Committee’s request for information on any measures taken or envisaged to ensure that penalties for labour law violations are sufficiently dissuasive, in the context of the proposed legislative reform of the BLA. In this respect, the Committee also notes the observations made by the ITUC concerning the need to strengthen the sanctions for employers that fail to comply with the legal provisions. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on any measures introduced or envisaged, in the context of the proposed legislative reform, to ensure that penalties for labour law violations are sufficiently dissuasive and, where applicable, to improve the proceedings for the effective enforcement of the legal provisions. In this respect, it also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the establishment of a legal unit at the DIFE, including on the number of staff and their functions, once established. Lastly, it once again requests the Government to provide information on the specific outcome of the cases referred to the labour courts (such as the imposition of fines or sentences of imprisonment and the legal provisions to which they relate).

The Committee also recalls that it previously noted that freedom of association cases (including cases of anti-union discrimination) were addressed by the Department of Labour (DOL). The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in response to the Committee’s request, that freedom of association cases are dealt with by the DOL because this Department is also responsible for the registration of employers’ and workers’ organizations, and their activities. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that labour officials of the DOL address cases of alleged violations of freedom of association through conciliation. In this regard, the Committee once again recalls its indications that cases of anti-union discrimination are not generally appropriate for conciliation or mediation and in any event must not undermine strict enforcement of applicable laws. With reference to its comments under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to secure the enforcement of legal provisions relating to freedom of association.

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

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2019.]