Rapport intérimaire - Rapport No. 304, Juin 1996

1. 57. In a communication dated 11 December 1995 the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions submitted a complaint against the Government of Bangladesh. The International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF) associated itself with this complaint in a communication of 11 January 1996.
2. 58. The Government of Bangladesh provided its observations in a communication dated 5 February 1996.
3. 59. Bangladesh 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. 60. The ICFTU alleges that the Government of Bangladesh has violated freedom of association principles by failing to provide protection to workers and trade unionists in the following circumstances.
2. 61. In December 1994 BIGU (Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers' Union) was formed. It is the first trade union in Bangladesh founded and run by women workers. From the beginning, so the ICFTU alleges, there has been industry resistance to BIGU amounting to a systematic violation of the right to organize and of other trade union rights. In defence of these rights BIGU has been involved, since the beginning of 1995, in a number of labour court cases concerning garment companies belonging to members of BGMEA (Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers' and Exporters' Association), the country's employers' association in the garment sector.
3. 62. In particular there have been, according to the complainant, systematic violations of workers' rights at the Palmal Knitwear Factory in Dhaka, owned by a vice-president of BGMEA. The repeated violations occurring there included beatings, forced resignations, dismissals, blacklisting, threats and other types of intimidation of workers and their family members as detailed below.
   • Intimidation, beating and resignation of Mr. N. Ahmed and Mr. M. Rahman
4. 63. The ICFTU reports that on 25 May 1995 a BIGU member, Mr. Nasir Ahmed, was beaten severely and locked in a store-room by Palmal managers. He was choked and threatened with death if he did not sign a blank sheet of paper. He signed, the Palmal manager drafted a corresponding resignation letter and he was thrown out of the factory. Two days earlier, on 23 May 1995, Palmal managers beat BIGU activist Motiur Rahman and locked him in a store-room for seven hours. They threatened to torture all workers involved in trade union activities and to kill Mr. Rahman. Mr. Rahman, just like Mr. Ahmed, was forced to sign a blank sheet of paper. His employment was terminated and he was expelled from the factory.
   • Termination of employment and blacklisting of eight BIGU members
5. 64. Another violation of trade union rights alleged by the complainant occurred in connection with overtime compensation: since January 1995 the Palmal knitwear workers have been made to work overnight and were only partially compensated for the time worked. In addition compensation was reduced in March 1995 while maintaining the same work hours. Eight BIGU members requested the former compensation level and were fired on the spot. After filing a labour court case for reinstatement, management sent them notice that they were on unauthorized leave. The workers filed a second case. Palmal has now blacklisted them, sending their names and photographs to other factories in the area.
   • Discrediting of 11 BIGU members
6. 65. When a major human rights group began investigating abuses in Palmal, the enterprise, according to the complainant, falsified documents attempting to discredit 11 BIGU members who had filed legal cases against the company. This was done by frightening 154 workers into signing blank sheets of paper, telling them that unless they signed the company would have to move from the area. A cover page was then attached to these signatures labelling the plaintiffs as "miscreants" who were trying to destroy the factory. The document thus created was then sent to the human rights group.
   • Threat of transfer of four BIGU members
7. 66. In August four BIGU activists were told they would be transferred to another factory a great distance from their homes.
   • Attempted forced resignation, dismissal of five workers, blacklisting, physical violence, anti-union discrimination, intimidation of family members
8. 67. On 7 September 1995 five workers including BIGU unit president, Ms. Kalpona, were told by the General Manager to resign or be dismissed. They refused and continued working. On 13 September Ms. Kalpona and another worker, Mr. Nurul Islam, were told again that their services were no longer needed and that they should leave the factory. When they refused Mr. Nurul Islam was grabbed by the neck and they were both physically removed from the factory. They never received back wages and were refused for some time work at other factories because of Palmal blacklisting efforts. Finally, they were employed at a new factory. For Mr. Nurul Islam employment was on the condition that he take no legal action against Palmal. The Palmal General Manager informed him that, unless he signs a resignation letter, he will not be paid one month's salary and two months' overtime still due.
9. 68. On 17 September 1995 the Palmal line supervisors were asked by the General Manager to investigate union activity among the staff. They compiled a list of 18 BIGU members. Six were told they should resign or their photographs would be circulated. On 19 September these 18 BIGU members informed management in writing that they were exercising their legal rights in promoting a trade union. The 18 were subsequently interrogated by management and denied all overtime, depriving them of income their families needed. Fearing employment retaliation other Palmal workers refused to be party to a legal case demanding payment of the legal minimum wage.
10. 69. Another tactic used by Palmal management, so the ICFTU continues, was to intimidate the relatives of BIGU activists employed in the same factory, threatening them with dismissals or bodily harm if the BIGU members continued their activities. Shortly after the workers had claimed overtime as described above, the company dismissed the mother of one of the plaintiffs. By threatening the brothers of two workers, management succeeded in getting one worker to withdraw a court case and another to resign. Management representatives visited the home of a plaintiff's sister. By threatening her husband, also a Palmal worker, the managers coerced him into beating his wife in front of them.
    • Forced resignations and threatened blacklisting of two women workers
11. 70. On 17 September 1995 two women workers who regularly visited the BIGU office were told by the General Manager to sign resignation letters and threatened to have their photos circulated to other factories if they refused. They were instructed not to visit BIGU. Fearing for their livelihood both signed these letters (which they were not allowed to read). They have been too afraid to take legal action against the company. They were not paid for overtime worked nor given termination benefits as required by law.
    • Attack on trade unionists and trade union premises
12. 71. On the night of 21 November 1995, a gang of 25 to 30 persons raided the office and study centre of BIGU in Dhaka and physically abused and terrorized the officers, the lawyer and the staff and the members present of the union. Most of the victims were women. The assailants who were well-dressed young men, were armed with pistols, rifles and molotov cocktails. The gang beat BIGU officers, including the President, the Vice President, the Organising Secretary, the Press Secretary and activists with gun butts and chairs. They encircled BIGU's lawyer, Ms. F.K. Feroza, ripped off her sari and attempted to set her on fire. They threatened to shoot any worker who spoke, fired shots wildly into the air, destroyed files, broke windows, knocked over file cabinets and other furniture and threw lit matches into the room. During the attack over 120 workers were present for legal advice and labour law and language classes. The office also houses BIGU's day school for workers' children and a health clinic. In spite of the intensive damage the BIGU office reopened the following day. Trade union officials have contacted the authorities concerning this savage attack, demanding a full investigation and protection against a recurrence.

B. The Government's reply

1. 72. The Government indicates that it has carried out a thorough inquiry following the submission of this complaint. It could not detect any violation of trade union rights. It also points out that, according to the management of the company, the allegations are promoted from outside so as to damage the business prospect of the garment industry which is entirely export-oriented.
   • Registration
2. 73. The Government reports that 106 plant-level trade unions and six national federations are presently active in the garment sector and it emphasizes the need for healthy trade unionism. However, it points out that BIGU is not a registered trade union. It was reportedly formed in December 1994 with mostly terminated or resigned men and women workers from about 600 garment factories. No records whatsoever, not even a membership list, could be made available to the inquiry team when it visited BIGU on 15 January 1995. Some workers of Palmal Knitwear are reported to be BIGU members, but their number could not be ascertained. Hence, in its view, BIGU does not exist as a trade union and its activities, run by legal advisors who are reportedly human rights activists, cannot be qualified as trade union functions under section 11 A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO), which specifies that "no trade union which is unregistered shall function as a trade union". Under section 7(2) of the same Ordinance no trade union shall be eligible for registration unless it has a minimum membership of 30 per cent of the total number of workers engaged in the establishment.
   • Intimidation, beating and resignation of Mr. M. Rahman and Mr. N. Ahmed
3. 74. The Government indicates that Mr. Motiur Rahman, a machine operator at Palmal Knitwear, resigned voluntarily from his employment in May 1995, in the presence of his brother-in-law. He is now employed with higher wages in a garment factory in Gazipur. The allegation of locking Mr. Rahman in a store-room for trade union activities was categorically denied by management. Mr. Nasir Ahmed voluntarily resigned on 25 May 1995 and is now engaged with higher wages in another garment factory in Dhaka. He filed a case in the Labour Court which is pending.
   • Termination of employment and blacklisting of eight BIGU members
4. 75. According to Palmal management there was some misunderstanding as regards overtime payment between the workers and the company which has been resolved amicably in the meantime. In the course of the inquiry some workers confirmed this and indicated that wages and overtime were now paid regularly and were higher than in comparable enterprises. The management insisted that the eight BIGU members were dismissed because of long unauthorized absence from duty. As indicated by the complainant they filed cases which are now sub judice, with the exception of two cases which have been withdrawn. All those dismissed had meanwhile found employment in other garment factories in the area.
5. 76. The Palmal management insisted that the allegations concerning blacklisting were fabricated. It indicated in a letter of 19 November 1995, addressed to the ITGLWF, a copy of which has been provided by the Government, that action had to be taken against workers for unauthorized absence. This led to court cases and the workers claiming unpaid wages, alleging that they had reported for work but had not been allowed to work. In fact, so the company argues, they had taken up work in another factory during their period of absence. To prove this, letters were sent out with the photos of concerned workers and confirmation was received.
   • Discrediting of 11 BIGU members
6. 77. The inquiry team gathered that the company had made available information to Mr. S. Hoque, reportedly a human rights activist, without however obtaining any details on the nature of the information. The management categorically denied having exercised any pressure on 154 workers as alleged. It points out that it would not make economic sense to threaten workers with dismissal since they were hired unskilled and became skilled on the job. The workers questioned in the course of the inquiry could not substantiate the allegation as regards forced signing of blank sheets of paper for purposes of discrediting BIGU members.
   • Attempted forced resignation and dismissal of five workers, blacklisting, physical violence
7. 78. According to the Government the allegations relating to the termination of employment of Ms. Kalpona and of Mr. Nurul Islam were found to be untrue. Mr. Nurul Islam was dismissed because of long unauthorized absence. He is now employed elsewhere, as confirmed by Ms. Hena, the BIGU President and he has received his dues from management. The proceedings against Ms. Kalpona have not yet been completed and she has not been dismissed from employment. The other allegations relating to this head of complaint could not be confirmed in the course of the inquiry.
   • Attack on trade union premises
8. 79. The Government, without having carried out a detailed investigation into the attack, indicates that this incidence has been reported to the police. Mrs. Hena, the BIGU president informed the inquiry team that the incident might have occurred at the instance of employers in the garment sector. However, she did not mention Palmal or any other enterprise by name.
   • Other allegations made by the complainant
9. 80. The Government reports that no evidence could be gathered as regards the other allegations made by the complainant, referring in particular to the threatened transfer of four BIGU members, to the forced resignations and threats of blacklisting of two women workers, to the anti-union investigation of Palmal management, involving acts of anti-union discrimination, and to the intimidation of family members.

C. The Committee's conclusions

1. 81. The Committee notes that this complaint concerns allegations of several grave cases of employer resistance to the establishment of a new union in the garment industry in Bangladesh and to the carrying out of union activities. Before examining the matters at issue individually, the Committee expresses its deep concern over the number and the seriousness of the allegations which paint a scenario where the exercise of legitimate trade union rights is severely restricted. It wishes to recall that the rights of workers' and employers' organisations can only be exercised in a climate that is free from violence, pressure or threats of any kind against the leaders and members of unions, and it is for government to ensure that this principle is respected (see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, 4th edition, 1996, para. 47).
2. 82. The Committee further notes that the Government has carried out an inquiry concerning the allegations made. It rejects anti-union motives of the employer on the basis of its inquiry, basing itself almost exclusively on information provided by the company itself. In this context the Committee wishes to reiterate the general principle, already referred to in an earlier case involving Bangladesh that, in instances where trade union activities are put forward as the only basis for incidents, it is incumbent upon the Government to show that the measures taken are in no way occasioned by trade union considerations (see 241st Report, Case No. 1326 (Bangladesh), para. 816). In the light of this principle and in order to enable the Committee to determine its position in full knowledge of the facts, it urges the Government to extend its inquiry in order to clear up contradictions in the evidence provided so far and to give a balanced view which takes account of the position of the complainant to a larger extent.
3. 83. The Committee also notes that several cases are pending before labour courts in Bangladesh concerning incidents referred to by the complainant. It hopes that the decisions of these courts will be handed down speedily and requests the Government to provide copies of these decisions as soon as they become available.
   • Registration
4. 84. The Committee notes the Government's statement that BIGU cannot function as a trade union because it is not registered as such under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (IRO). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether BIGU has applied for registration and if this is the case, to provide information on the progress of BIGU's application, and to communicate the result of the registration procedure as soon as it is available.
   • Blacklisting of workers and trade unionists
5. 85. The Committee notes that several of the incidences referred to by the complainant include allegations of blacklisting by management. The complainant describes a series of instances where photographs of workers and trade unionists have been taken and sent to other potential employers. The complainants allege that this has been done with a view to blacklist the workers in question so as to prevent their employment in other companies, whereas the company in question denies blacklisting and asserts that it had to act the way it did to prove unauthorized absence of workers in cases brought by workers before labour courts. By taking and sending photographs of concerned workers the company could show that certain employees worked elsewhere during their absence from Palmal. Considering that workers face many practical difficulties in proving the real nature of their dismissal or denial of employment and that these difficulties may originate in blacklisting which constitutes, if proven, a serious act of anti-union discrimination, the Committee requests the Government to further investigate the motives of Palmal for sending photographs of workers to other employers and to keep it informed.
   • Intimidation, beating and resignation of Mr. M. Rahman and N. Ahmed
6. 86. The Committee notes that while the complainant and the Government concur that Messrs. Rahman and Ahmed are no longer employed by Palmal, they disagree on the circumstances leading to the termination of their employment: the Government, while not expressly denying that they had been beaten, found that these two BIGU activists resigned voluntarily while the complainant emphasizes that they were both intimidated and forced to resign because of their trade union activities. Confronted with contradictory evidence, the Committee draws the Government's attention to the fundamental principle that intimidation, assaults on the physical integrity of trade unionists and forced resignations constitute a serious violation of freedom of association (see similar Digest, loc. cit., paras. 46, 47 and 702). It requests the Government to further clarify the circumstances leading to the termination of the employment of Mr. M. Rahman and Mr. N. Ahmed and to keep it informed.
   • Termination of employment of eight BIGU members
7. 87. The Committee notes that there is contradictory evidence as to the reasons for terminating eight BIGU members at Palmal in connection with a controversy over overtime. The Government, on the basis of its inquiry, indicates that these workers were dismissed because of long unauthorized absence from duty, whereas the complainants allege that they have been terminated as a consequence of defending workers' rights on compensation issues, i.e. in the exercise of trade union activities. The Committee also notes that there are now six cases before the Labour Court related to this incidence. Confronted with contradictory statements the Committee wishes to reiterate that the dismissal of workers exercising trade union functions constitutes anti-union discrimination (Digest, loc. cit. para. 702). It requests the Government to further clarify the reasons for terminating eight BIGU members and to keep it informed. It also requests the Government to provide copies of the decisions of the Labour Court where the cases relating to this allegation are pending.
   • Discrediting of 11 BIGU members and threat of transfer of four BIGU members
8. 88. The Committee notes that there are conflicting statements on whether the company in question has attempted to discredit 11 BIGU members by fabricating evidence to the effect that the workers themselves condemned the activities of their 11 colleagues who had brought law suits against the company. Noting that the workers questioned in the course of the inquiry could not confirm this allegation, the Committee requests the Government to investigate further this question in order to provide full information to the Committee.
9. 89. It takes the same position as regards the allegation that four BIGU members were threatened with transfer. While recalling that threats of transfer, depending on the circumstances, may constitute anti-union discrimination in employment (see Digest, loc. cit. para. 695) the Committee asks the complainant to supply more ample and precise information to substantiate this allegation.
   • Attempted forced resignation and dismissal of five workers, physical violence, anti-union discrimination, intimidation of family members
10. 90. The Committee notes that the complainant alleges the dismissal of five workers. However, details are only given as regards Ms. Kalpona and Mr. Nurul Islam. No information is provided as regards the other workers and any links between Mr. Islam's termination of employment and union activities remain unexplained while, according to the Government his dismissal was due to unauthorized absence. Blacklisting is alleged for both Ms. Kalpona and Mr. Islam; however, the complainant also states that both workers have found other employment meanwhile. This is confirmed by the Government as regards Mr. Nurul Islam. As regards Ms. Kalpona the Government insists that she is still in Palmal's employment. While noting this information the Committee regrets the severe difficulties Ms. Kalpona is exposed to in her employment because of trade union activities. It requests the Government to take the necessary steps to clarify her employment situation, to make sure that she is not discriminated against because of her trade union activities and to assure that she can continue to work in her post at Palmal, if she so wishes.
11. 91. The Committee notes that the Government, while not denying the anti-union attitude of the management, could not shed further light on it. The Committee considers that these allegations complete the picture of active anti-union discrimination by management. It considers that establishing lists of trade unionists for the purpose of having a basis for systematic anti-union activities, taking such forms as forced resignations and blacklisting, is a severe violation of freedom of association principles. The same is true for denying trade unionists overtime, because of their union activities. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take all measures necessary to stop all forms of anti-union discrimination in the company concerned, including forced resignations and denying overtime facilities to trade unionists.
12. 92. The Committee also regrets that Palmal management is alleged to have resorted to exercising pressure on relatives of BIGU activists who were also employed by Palmal. It requests the Government to further clarify this allegation and considers that it represents, if proven, a particularly severe form of anti-union discrimination, likely to further exacerbate the general atmosphere of fear and oppression created by management.
    • Forced resignation of two women workers
13. 93. The Committee notes that the allegation that two workers had to resign under pressure of blacklisting because of their contacts with BIGU have not yet been cleared up by the Government. The Committee considers that such practices, if proven, constitute a severe form of anti-union discrimination. It therefore requests the Government to clarify the situation as regards these two women workers and to keep it informed.
    • Attack on trade union premises
14. 94. The Committee deplores the attack on the trade union premises on 21 November 1995 and the physical assault on trade unionists present. The Committee emphasizes that attacks against trade unionists and against trade union premises and property constitute serious interference with trade union rights. Criminal activities of this nature create a climate of fear which is extremely prejudicial to the exercise of trade union activities.
15. 95. The Committee notes that this grave incident has been reported to the police. However, the Government did not report on any progress made by the police in clearing up this case nor did the government inquiry shed any further light on this serious incident. Deploring this severe violation of trade union rights the Committee strongly urges the Government to immediately institute an independent judicial inquiry into the attack on the trade union premises and the assault on trade unionists on 21 November 1995 so as to identify and punish the guilty parties and to keep it informed.