Suites données aux recommandations du comité et du Conseil d’administration - Rapport No. 324, Mars 2001

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 14. At its March 2000 meeting, the Committee examined this case concerning allegations of denial of the right of trade union officers to leave the country to participate in international trade union meetings as well as acts of anti-union discrimination, in particular the transfer of a number of trade unionists employed by the Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB) [see 320th Report, paras. 242-256]. The Committee called on the parties to come to an agreement on the frequency of attendance to international trade union meetings by trade union officers, which would take into account the nature of their work and responsibilities within the BWDB. The Committee had also requested the Government to conduct investigations into the allegations of victimization through transfers of 76 persons, and in this context requested the complainant to provide further information. The Committee also called on the Government to guarantee that the rulings of the Labour Appeal Tribunal against several of the transfer orders are applied.
2. 15. In a communication dated 24 October 2000, the Government states that the management of Bangladesh Water Development Board carried out an extensive inquiry into the allegations of denial of permission to participate in international meetings, and found that there had been no such denials. Noting, however, that this conflicts with the former information provided by the Government to the effect that there had been some refusals due to work exigencies, the Committee again calls on the parties to come to an agreement on the frequency of attendance at such meetings, taking into account the nature of the work and the responsibilities within the organization.
3. 16. Concerning the allegation of anti-union discrimination against trade unionists in the form of transfers, the Government states that the management of BWDB have re-established the inquiry committee to investigate this matter further. The inquiry committee had previously asked the complainant to provide it with detailed information concerning the 76 employees to facilitate the investigation; however, the Government states that such information has not been forthcoming. The Government points out that the Committee also requested the complainant to provide this additional information. In the absence of this information, the Government could only repeat the previous findings of the inquiry committee. In this context, the Committee can only regret that the complainant did not provide the additional information requested by the Government and the Committee.