Interim Report - Report No 365, November 2012

Case No 2902 (Pakistan) - Complaint date: 12-OCT-11 - Follow-up

Allegations: The complainant organization alleges refusal by the management of the Karachi Electric Supply Enterprise to implement a tripartite agreement, to which it is a party. It further alleges that the enterprise management ordered to open fire at the protesting workers, injuring nine, and filed criminal cases against 30 trade union office bearers

1. 1110. The complaint is contained in a communication from the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Labour Union (KESC) dated 12 October 2011.
2. 1111. The Government sent its observations in a communication dated 7 June 2012.
3. 1112. 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. 1113. In its communication dated 12 October 2011, the complainant indicates that it is an industrial trade union elected as collective bargaining agent to represent the workers engaged in the Karachi Electric Supply Enterprise under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act.
2. 1114. The complainant alleges that the enterprise declared 4,500 senior/experienced workers as redundant while recruiting new employees on contract basis through a private contractor in order to avert financial obligations such as gratuity/higher pay and fringe benefits, in violation of the fundamental rights of freedom of association of the workers and the relevant national laws.
3. 1115. In this regard, the union made concerted efforts to get these issues resolved through social dialogue but the management did not respond. The Provincial Governor of Sindh held a tripartite meeting with the union representatives, the management and the local government administration of Karachi on 26 July 2011 and a tripartite agreement was signed by the parties. This agreement provides for the assignment of the redundant employees on alternative posts and the recovery of unpaid wages as well as the constitution of a dispute resolution committee to make appropriate recommendations to resolve all other pending issues (the complainant attached the agreement to the complaint). However, the management refused to respect and implement the said agreement.
4. 1116. The workers therefore decided to hold a public demonstration on 29 August 2011 in front of the headquarters of the enterprise demanding the payment of unpaid wages (four months) and for the respect and implementation of the tripartite agreement. During that demonstration, the management of the enterprise ordered its security officers to open fire on the workers, injuring more than nine who remained under medical treatment.
5. 1117. Following this demonstration, the management dismissed and/or filed criminal cases against 30 trade union office bearers on false charges under the Anti-terrorism Act, in order to defeat the lawful efforts of the union and to prevent the implementation of the tripartite agreement. However, no criminal cases were filed by the police against the management, despite the written requests of the union. This was only possible following an order of the honourable court and the First Information Report (FIR).

B. The Government’s reply

1. 1118. In a communication dated 7 June 2012, the Government indicates that an agreement has been reached between the management and the KESC as a result of an effective intervention of the Governor of Sindh. Subsequently, the government of the Province of Sindh has also been asked to make all efforts to ensure the implementation of this agreement in letter and spirit.

C. The Committee’s conclusions

1. 1119. The Committee notes that in this case the complainant alleges that the management of the Karachi Electric Supply Enterprise refused to implement a tripartite agreement signed on 26 July 2011, to which it is a party and that during a demonstration against the refusal of the enterprise to implement this agreement, the enterprise management ordered its security guards to open fire on protesting workers, injuring nine, and subsequently dismissed and/or filed criminal cases against 30 trade union officers. The Committee notes that according to the complainant, the police refused to file criminal charges against the management of the company, but the complainant was only able to bring such a case following an order of the honourable court and the FIR.
2. 1120. The Committee deeply regrets that the Government has sent only partial information indicating that an agreement has been reached between the management and the KESC as a result of an effective intervention of the Governor of Sindh and that subsequently, the government of the Province of Sindh has also been asked to make all efforts to ensure the implementation of this agreement in letter and spirit. It is not clear whether the Government is referring to the July 2011 agreement or to a more recent one that might have addressed the unfortunate events of August 2011. In these circumstances, the Committee requests the Government to clarify which agreement it is referring to and should there be a more recent agreement, to transmit a copy thereof to the Committee. The Committee further requests the Government and the complainant to indicate whether the July 2011 agreement has now been implemented.
3. 1121. As regards the allegations of violent intervention in a peaceful demonstration, the Committee recalls that workers should enjoy the right to peaceful demonstration to defend their occupational interests. In the event of assaults on the physical or moral integrity of individuals, the Committee has considered that an independent judicial inquiry should be instituted immediately with a view to fully clarifying the facts, determining responsibilities, punishing those responsible and preventing the repetition of such acts. The absence of judgements against the guilty parties creates, in practice, a situation of impunity, which reinforces the climate of violence and insecurity, and which is extremely damaging to the exercise of trade union rights. Moreover, the use of extremely serious measures, such as dismissal of workers for having participated in a strike and refusal to re-employ them, implies a serious risk of abuse and constitutes a violation of freedom of association. Allegations of criminal conduct should not be used to harass trade unionists by reason of their union membership or activities [see Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee, fifth (revised) edition, 2006, paras 133, 50, 52, 666 and 41]. The Committee therefore requests the Government to institute immediately an independent judicial inquiry into the allegations that: (i) violence was used against trade union members during a demonstration against the refusal of the enterprise to implement the tripartite agreement, injuring nine; and (ii) 30 trade union bearers were dismissed following this demonstration and/or criminal charges were brought against them, with a view to fully clarifying the facts, determining responsibility, 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 measures taken. It 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 reinstatement and the dropping of all pending charges. If reinstatement is found not to be possible for objective and compelling reasons, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the union members concerned are paid adequate compensation so as to constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction for anti-union discrimination.
4. 1122. The Committee observes that, according to the Government’s statement in the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards (June 2011) when reviewing the application of Convention No. 87, Presidential Ordinance No. IV of 1999, which amended the Anti terrorism Act by penalizing with imprisonment the creation of civil commotion, including illegal strikes or slowdowns, has been repealed and is no longer in force. Noting from the complainant’s allegations that charges were brought against trade union officers under the Anti-terrorism Act, the Committee requests the Government to indicate precisely under which provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act the trade union officers were charged and invites it to ensure that the charges are dropped should they relate to the exercise of legitimate strike action.

The Committee’s recommendations

1. 1123. In the light of its foregoing interim conclusions, the Committee invites the Governing Body to approve the following recommendations:
   • (a) The Committee requests the Government to clarify which agreement it is referring to in its reply and should there be a more recent agreement, to transmit a copy thereof to the Committee. The Committee further requests the Government and the complainant to indicate whether the July 2011 agreement has now been implemented.
   • (b) In view of the gravity of the matters raised in this case, the Committee requests the Government to institute immediately an independent judicial inquiry into the allegations that: (i) violence was used against trade union members during a demonstration against the refusal of the enterprise to implement the tripartite agreement, injuring nine; and (ii) 30 trade union officers were dismissed following this demonstration and/or criminal charges were brought against them, with a view to fully clarifying the facts, determining responsibility, 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 measures taken. It 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 reinstatement and the dropping of all pending charges. If reinstatement is found not to be possible for objective and compelling reasons, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the union members concerned are paid adequate compensation so as to constitute a sufficiently dissuasive sanction for anti-union discrimination.
   • (c) Noting from the complainant’s allegations that charges were brought against trade union officers under the Anti-terrorism Act, the Committee requests the Government to indicate precisely under which provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act the trade union officers were charged and invites it to ensure that the charges are dropped should they relate to the exercise of legitimate strike action.