Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) - Nepal (Ratification: 1996)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2025, Publication: 113rd ILC session (2025)

Written information provided by the Government

The Government submits this detailed report to the Committee, outlining its continuing efforts to implement the Convention. The Government expresses appreciation to the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations for its ongoing observations and technical guidance, which have served as essential tools for strengthening the domestic implementation of international labour standards. Nepal remains fully committed to upholding the principles of the Convention and has undertaken significant legislative, institutional and practical steps to improve protections related to anti-union discrimination, prevent acts of interference, and promote free and fair collective bargaining mechanisms.

Article 1 – Protection against anti-union discrimination

With respect to Article 1 of the Convention, which relates to protection against anti-union discrimination, the Government reaffirms that this principle is firmly embedded in its national legal framework. Both the Labour Act, 2017, and the Trade Union Act, 1992, contain provisions designed to safeguard workers from being discriminated against on the basis of their trade union affiliation or activities. Nonetheless, gaps remain in the practical enforcement of these legal safeguards and further efforts are needed to ensure consistent and comprehensive protection for all workers. Accordingly, a revision of the Labour Act is under way with a view to bolstering these protections and addressing ambiguities or deficiencies in the current framework.

To advance this reform process, a tripartite task force was established, including representatives from the Government, employers and workers. This task force has been given the mandate to examine the existing legislative provisions and propose amendments that would better reflect the obligations under the Convention. Formal calls for submissions were made to the national representative organizations of workers (the Joint Trade Union Coordination Centre (JTUCC)), which encompasses all major trade union federations, including the General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT), and employers (the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI)). In addition, a public notice was issued to invite recommendations from the broader community, including civil society organizations, trade union activists and independent stakeholders. The Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Security has since received written submissions, which are now being thoroughly reviewed by the tripartite task force. These discussions are ongoing, with the task force having already conducted several rounds of focused dialogue to ensure that all voices are heard and reflected in the forthcoming amendments.

While legal reforms are being considered, the Government has simultaneously taken action to enhance enforcement of existing protections. In particular, the Department of Labour and Occupational Safety (DoLOS) has conducted regular targeted training and awareness programmes designed for labour inspectors, trade union officials and employers on an annual basis. These programmes have aimed to increase awareness of legal protections against antiunion discrimination and to foster a culture of compliance and mutual respect. In collaboration with social partners, joint awareness campaigns have also been carried out at the national and regional levels. These campaigns emphasize workers’ rights under the law and underscore the Government’s zero tolerance policy toward discriminatory practices that obstruct the exercise of freedom of association.

In practical terms, the Government has acted swiftly in recent cases involving allegations of anti-union discrimination. Two examples involved the unauthorized transfer of elected trade union officials, one in a prominent commercial bank and another at a medical college. In both cases, the trade union leaders were transferred without their consent, raising serious concerns under section 23A of the Trade Union Act, 1992, which clearly states that enterprise-level trade union office-bearers cannot be transferred or promoted without their consent except in special circumstances. Upon investigation, the DoLOS found both transfers to be unlawful and promptly intervened. The Department issued official directives ordering the reversal of these actions and affirming the legal protections afforded to union leaders. These interventions not only rectified the individual violations but also sent a broader message regarding the Government’s commitment to enforcing anti-discrimination protections in practice.

Article 2 – Protection against acts of interference

Regarding Article 2 of the Convention, which addresses the need to protect workers’ and employers’ organizations from interference, the Government has made significant institutional improvements. Chief among these is the enhancement of the integrated labour management information system (ILMIS), which has been upgraded with technical assistance from the ILO and in consultation with national stakeholders. The ILMIS now includes a fully functional electronic case management component accessible online. Through this system, workers and stakeholders can submit complaints electronically, including those related to interference by employers or other parties in trade union activities. Importantly, the system allows anonymous submissions, thereby increasing accessibility and protecting workers from retaliation. The data submitted through the system are securely stored and systematically tracked, allowing for more efficient follow-up, analysis and resolution by the relevant authorities.

In addition to improving complaint mechanisms, the Government has institutionalized capacity-building programmes focused on the prevention of interference in trade union activities. These training sessions, financed through the Government’s annual budget, have become a regular feature of the work plans of the DoLOS, and labour and employment offices across the country. Labour inspectors are trained to identify and address both overt and subtle forms of interference in the exercise of trade union rights. These efforts contribute to a more effective monitoring system and increase compliance with the relevant provisions of national and international labour standards.

Article 4 – Promotion of collective bargaining

Turning to Article 4, which calls for the promotion of voluntary collective bargaining, the Government of Nepal confirms its full support for this principle and has taken a range of steps to institutionalize and promote effective bargaining practices. The Labour Act and the Trade Union Act both provide the legal basis for collective bargaining, and the Government has implemented administrative mechanisms to facilitate fair elections to identify the most representative trade union at the enterprise level. In the current fiscal year (2024/25), which began in July 2024, a total of 31 trade unions have been certified as authorized bargaining agents in their enterprises following enterprise-level elections or where a single union is present in the establishment. During this same period, 53 collective agreements have been officially registered with the labour and employment offices.

These figures reflect continued progress in institutionalizing collective bargaining practices across the country. As of the end of the previous fiscal year, a cumulative total of 1,018 enterprise-level collective agreements had been registered. Previously, data on these agreements were collected manually, leading to incomplete records in cases where agreements were not physically submitted. To address this issue, the Government is currently upgrading the ILMIS system to allow for digital registration and systematic tracking of collective bargaining agreements. This upgrade will support the generation of accurate, disaggregated data on collective bargaining and enable better monitoring and evaluation of trends and outcomes in this area.

Although enterprise-level collective bargaining has become more common, sectoral or group-level bargaining remains underutilized. Section 123 of the Labour Act, 2017, permits such bargaining where enterprises operate within the same sector or produce similar goods or services. Despite this provision, no sectoral agreements have been registered to date. The Government acknowledges the need to better operationalize this provision and is actively considering revisions to section 123 as part of the Labour Act reform process. The aim is to create a more enabling environment for sectoral bargaining by clarifying procedures, roles and responsibilities. Consultations with the JTUCC, FNCCI and other social partners are ongoing in this regard, and the Government remains committed to aligning its legal provisions with the requirements of the Convention.

The Government is also reviewing its approach to dispute resolution and compulsory arbitration. Concerns have been raised about the scope of compulsory arbitration and its potential to limit the voluntary nature of collective bargaining. These concerns are being taken seriously, and the Government is currently reviewing the relevant provisions in close dialogue with social partners. Proposals have been submitted to limit the use of compulsory arbitration and to ensure that it is only used as a last resort in clearly defined circumstances. At the same time, the Government is developing a new arbitration procedure that emphasizes impartiality, transparency and adherence to international fair trial standards. This initiative has been included in the Government’s annual budget and programme for the upcoming fiscal year beginning in July 2025.

The new procedure will establish independent and transparent mechanisms for the appointment of arbitrators and the conduct of arbitration proceedings. It will help to ensure that both workers and employers can have confidence in the neutrality and fairness of the arbitration process. The Government has expressed its strong interest in continuing to receive technical assistance from the ILO in this area, particularly in designing institutional frameworks, training arbitrators and building public awareness.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Government reaffirms its full commitment to the principles enshrined in the Convention. Considerable progress has been made in strengthening the legal framework, institutional capacity, enforcement mechanisms and data systems necessary to protect freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining. Ongoing legislative reforms, improved complaint and monitoring systems, targeted training and strong collaboration with social partners reflect a comprehensive and sustained approach. The Government will continue to promote constructive social dialogue, support the empowerment of trade unions, and ensure that both employers and workers can exercise their rights in a fair and equitable environment. Future reports will provide updated information, and the Government looks forward to maintaining its cooperative engagement with the ILO and its supervisory bodies.

Discussion by the Committee

Chairperson – I have the honour of inviting the Honourable representative of the Government of Nepal, Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and social security, to take the floor.

Government representative – We take note of the comments made by the Committee of Experts. In a constructive spirit, we have provided the feedback on the status of collective bargaining in Nepal.

Nepal is firm in its commitments to effectively protect, promote and ensure the right to organize and collective bargaining in the workplace. Collective bargaining is an established practice and culture in the Nepalese labour market. We ratified the Convention in 1996 and since then we have put in place institutions and mechanisms for the effective implementation of the Convention in the true spirit of tripartite cooperation and social dialogue.

Nepal is party to 11 ILO Conventions, including seven fundamental ones. The effective implementation of these instruments through domestic legal instruments and monitoring mechanisms is our core priority. We are also in the process of completing the internal procedures for the ratification of an additional nine ILO Conventions including the fundamental Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948 (No. 87).

In line with the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No.144), tripartite culture remains at the heart of our labour governance. Our Government, workers and employers come together for constructive engagement, democratic discussions and joint decision-making.

Article 34 of the Constitution of Nepal guarantees the right to labour as a fundamental right. In its sub-article 3, the Constitution guarantees the right to form and join trade unions and to engage in collective bargaining for every labourer. The Constitution has embraced the principles and objectives of the Convention.

There are constitutional guarantees, comprehensive legal instruments, and a robust and well-established culture to uphold the right to organize and to bargain collectively in the Nepalese labour market. We have seen a smooth and effective implementation of the Convention in the labour market. A few stand-alone cases may arise. However, collective bargaining is well ensured in the general labour practice in Nepal.

In view of this, and despite the information presented to the Committee earlier, we are concerned to be included in the final list of individual cases, provided by the social partners. Nevertheless, we take note of the Committee of Experts’ comments on the implementation of the Convention and are happy to share our status and progress with the Committee. We take this as an opportunity to showcase to the Committee our excellent tripartite culture with comprehensive collective bargaining engrained in the labour market.

In line with Article 1 of the Convention, the Government is making steadfast efforts to ensure adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. Any form of discrimination is prohibited by the Constitution of Nepal, which also applies to trade unions. The Labour Act, 2017, prohibits discrimination against workers. The Trade Union Act, 1992, is equally applicable to all trade unions, without any discrimination. Workers’ and trade unions’ rights are ensured in the core legal instruments and they are properly implemented. The principles of equality and non-discrimination among workers and trade unions are well enshrined in the prevailing labour laws, as well as in practice, and it has become a culture in our labour market.

The Government acknowledges the request of the Committee of Experts for an explicit provision that prohibits all forms and acts of discrimination against trade unions and for sufficiently and effectively dissuasive sanction provisions if violated. In the same vein, a tripartite task force was formed, including representatives from Government, workers and employers. This task force has been mandated to assess the current legislative provisions and propose amendments in order to better reflect the obligations under the Convention, in letter and spirit, in the prevailing labour laws in Nepal.

Formal calls for submissions were made to the national representative organization of workers, the JTUCC, which encompasses all major trade union federations, including GEFONT, and employers (the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI)). In addition, a public notice was issued inviting the recommendations from wider public communities, including civil society organizations, trade union activists and independent stakeholders. The received submissions are now being thoroughly reviewed by the tripartite task force and discussions are ongoing. The task force has already conducted several rounds of focused dialogue to ensure that all voices are well reflected in the forthcoming amendment.

The Government, through clear legal provisions, is committed to ending discrimination in all its forms and manifestations, be it in membership, participation, transfer or training.

Nepal also understands that anti-union discrimination does not require a mere one-time legal reform, but rather continuous and progressive implementation. The Government has in parallel taken effective action to ensure enforcement of existing protection mechanisms. In particular, the DoLOS is conducting targeted training and awareness programmes on an annual basis, especially designed for labour inspectors, trade union officials and employers. These programmes have been successful in raising awareness of legal protections against anti-union discrimination and in fostering a widespread culture of legal compliance and mutual respect. In collaboration with the social partners, joint awareness campaigns are being carried out at the national and regional levels. These campaigns promote workers’ legal rights and underscore the Government’s zero tolerance policy toward all sorts of discriminatory practices which obstruct the equal, unhindered, free and full exercise of freedom of association.

Furthermore, the Government has taken swift action in a few recent stand-alone cases involving allegations of anti-union discrimination. Two cases were received involving the unauthorized transfer of elected trade union officials – one in a commercial bank and another at a medical college. In both cases, the trade union leaders were transferred without their consent, raising serious concerns under section 23(a) of the Trade Union Act, 1992, which clearly states that enterprise-level trade union office-holders cannot be transferred or promoted without their consent except in special circumstances. Upon investigation by the DoLOS, both transfers were found to be unlawful and were promptly intervened in. The Department issued official directives ordering the reversal of these actions and affirming the legal protections accorded to the union leaders. These interventions by the Government not only rectified the individual stand-alone cases of violations but also sent a broader message to the wider labour community regarding the Government’s firm commitment to effectively enforcing anti-discrimination protections in practice.

In order to ensure the effective implementation of Article 2 of the Convention, the Government has made a number of significant efforts, including awareness campaigns. To ease workers’ access to the Government for any complaints, including on acts of interference, we have put in place a digital tool with an electronic case management mechanism. The ILMIS has provided all workers, labour suppliers, trade unions, and enterprises with an easy platform to lodge their grievances and complaints on all matters, including acts interference and occupational accidents. The platform was upgraded in consultation with the stakeholders and with ILO technical assistance.

In order to maintain the privacy of the complainant, protect their confidentiality and protect them from the fear of reprisals or intimidation, the digital platform also provides space for anonymous submissions. With secure and efficient data storage as well as a tracking system, the management, follow-up, data analysis and future policy feedback has been facilitated by the new ILMIS platform.

In addition, targeted and institutionalized capacity-building programmes are launched with special emphasis on preventing acts of interference in trade union activities. The training sessions, workshops and awareness campaigns are part of the Government’s regular work. Labour inspectors are trained to identify and address both overt and subtle forms of interference in the exercise of trade union rights. The Government is making efforts to further simplify the process through the digital platform for complaint registration, with easy, wider and smooth access for all concerned.

Regarding Article 4 of the Convention, the right to collective bargaining is enshrined in the Constitution of Nepal as a fundamental right. The Labour Act, the Trade Union Act and other related legal bodies further strengthen the right. The Government has implemented administrative mechanisms to facilitate fair elections to identify the most representative trade union at the enterprise level.

In the current fiscal year (2024/25), a total of 31 trade unions have been certified as authorized bargaining agents in their enterprises through the elections at enterprise level. During the same period, 53 collective agreements were officially registered with the Labour and Employment Offices.

These figures reflect the continued progress in institutionalizing collective bargaining practices across the country. As of the end of the previous fiscal year, a total of 1,018 enterprise-level collective agreements had been registered. Earlier, data on these agreements were collected manually, leading to incomplete records in cases where agreements were not physically submitted. To address this issue, the Government is currently upgrading the ILMIS system to allow digital registration and systematic tracking of collective bargaining agreements. This upgrade will support the generation of accurate and disaggregated data on collective bargaining, and enable better monitoring and evaluation of trends and outcomes in this area.

Although enterprise-level collective bargaining has become more common, sectoral or group-level bargaining remains underutilized. Section 123 of the Labour Act, 2017, permits such bargaining where enterprises operate within the same sector or produce similar goods or services. Despite this provision, no sectoral agreements have been registered to date. Thus, it is not the case that the Government has not provided any information concerning the number of the sectoral collective agreements, as stated in the comments of the Committee of Experts. The Government is willing and ready to share the information, but the number remains zero to date. The Government also acknowledges the need to better operationalize this provision and is actively considering revision of section 123 as part of the Labour Act reform process. The aim is to create a more enabling environment for sectoral bargaining by clarifying procedures, roles and responsibilities. Consultations with the JTUCC, FNCCI and other social partners are ongoing in this regard, and the Government remains committed to aligning its legal provisions with the requirements of the Convention through the forthcoming legal amendment.

To conclude, our efforts and actions are in line with the implementation of the Convention. It is a matter of priority for us. We are committed to further strengthening these provisions.

Worker members – The Worker members remain concerned about Nepal’s failure to fully implement the Convention, particularly Articles 1 and 2 which guarantee protection against anti-union discrimination and acts of interference. Despite years of repeated recommendations from the Committee of Experts, Nepal’s legal framework still lacks clear and specific prohibitions against anti-union discrimination. The relevant provisions in the Labour Act, 2017, sections 8 and 163, are overly general and insufficient. Even the Government has acknowledged this gap.

In sectors like hospitality, this legal gap enables abuse. Workers are kept in bogus traineeships and internships or are hired through successive short-term contracts denying them stable employment and the fundamental right to organize. As the ILO’s supervisory bodies have repeatedly emphasized, job insecurity undermines and deters trade union activity. These abusive practices disguise real employment and block access to representation and collective bargaining. Worse, trade unionists defending workers in the hospitality service face reprisal.

At one renowned Katmandu Hotel, a union leader was dismissed after supporting 11 workers falsely engaged as trainees who had challenged seven years of exploitation in the court. Alarmingly, the Supreme Court of Nepal handed down a ruling in February 2025 which excludes the entire banking and financial sector from the provisions of the Labour Act. This decision effectively strips thousands of workers from their fundamental labour rights including the right to organize and bargain collectively. It represents a serious setback for workers’ rights in Nepal and must be urgently addressed.

We are further concerned by the Government’s report that no complaints of anti-union discrimination or interference were registered during the reporting period. This absence may not reflect compliance but rather fear of reprisal and lack of accessible and effective complaint mechanisms.

Without robust legal safeguards, workers remain vulnerable to intimidation and retaliation. That said, we acknowledge recent efforts made by the Government. A tripartite task force comprising Government, employer and worker representatives is currently reviewing the Labour Act to address existing gaps and align national law with the Convention. We also note the Government’s steps to strengthen enforcement through regular training for labour inspectors, union officials and employers, as well as public awareness campaigns.

The Government also conducts national and regional awareness campaigns in partnership with social partners, highlighting workers’ rights and making known the Government’s firm zero tolerance stance on discrimination.

Further, we note the upgrade of ILMIS, developed with ILO support. The system now allows for online and anonymous complaint submission, increasing accessibility and protecting workers from retaliation. Regular capacity-building programmes for labour inspectors have also been institutionalized, helping to detect interference in trade union activities.

We encourage the Government to pursue these efforts and to urgently adopt legislative reforms that explicitly prohibit anti-union discrimination, covering all stages of employment and interference, and protect all workers including in the hospitality, banking and financial sectors. These reforms must be developed in full consultation with the social partners and must be backed by swift enforcement, effective remedies and dissuasive sanctions.

Workers and their organizations in Nepal face further significant hurdles in engaging in collective bargaining. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, elections of trade unions authorized to bargain collectively were suspended. The Committee of Experts has called for the Government to proceed without delay with elections of trade unions authorized to bargain effectively and has reiterated its request that negotiation with non-union actors should only occur where no trade union exists.

We take note of the written information submitted by the Government according to which in the year 2024/25, 31 unions were certified as bargaining agents and 53 collective agreements were registered. Cumulatively over 1,000 enterprise-level agreements have been registered to date. While these figures are encouraging, the full realization of the Convention still requires the development of effective voluntary collective bargaining mechanisms at all levels.

Section 123 of the Labour Act, which provides for a special regulatory regime for collective bargaining in specific sectors, can unduly restrict enterprise-level bargaining where sectoral agreements exist. Section 123 should be amended in order to ensure its compatibility with the principles of collective bargaining, which must be promoted at all levels.

Workers and their organizations must retain the ability to negotiate at the enterprise level for better conditions even when sectoral frameworks are in place. Further to this legal barrier, we note that according to the written information submitted by the Government, no sectoral agreements have yet been concluded, reflecting the underutilization of sectoral or multi-employer bargaining structures. These agreements are vital to achieving fair labour standards across entire industries, especially where enterprise-level bargaining is weak or fragmented.

Sectoral bargaining plays a crucial role in setting minimum conditions, reducing inequalities and ensuring broad worker coverage.

Finally, the Workers’ group remains concerned about the broad scope of compulsory arbitration permitted under the Labour Act. The Committee of Experts has emphasized that compulsory arbitration should be strictly limited to essential cases consistent with the Convention, specifically in the public service involving state administration, during acute national crises or in essential services in the strict sense. Regarding the latter, we note with concern that the list of essential services under the Essential Services Act is defined in a very broad manner. We urge the Government to review this list in consultation with the social partners so as to align it with the provisions of the Convention.

We note the Government’s ongoing review of these legal provisions in consultation with the social partners. Proposals have been submitted to restrict compulsory arbitration to clearly defined exceptional cases and to ensure it is only used as a last resort.

Simultaneously, a new arbitration procedure is being developed to guarantee impartiality, transparency and compliance with international fair trial standards. This initiative is included in the Government’s budget and programme for the fiscal year starting July 2025.

We acknowledge the establishment of the tripartite task force to revise the Labour Act as an important step forward.

However, we expect the Government of Nepal to act promptly and decisively to fully align its legislation with the Convention. This includes enacting clear provisions against anti-union discrimination, introducing effective sanctions, ensuring accessible complaint mechanisms and sustaining awareness efforts.

We also address the need for continued steps in strengthening collective bargaining, particularly through union elections, prioritizing negotiations with representative trade unions and reviewing section 123 to support free and voluntary bargaining at all levels.

We look forward to tangible results from these commitments for stronger collective bargaining in Nepal.

Employer members – We would like to thank the Government of the Republic of Nepal for the oral and written information provided concerning the implementation, in law and in practice, of the Convention. As is customary, we would like to provide background information, for a better understanding of the case. This is the first time that the Committee is discussing this case. Nepal ratified the Convention in 1996, and the Committee of Experts has issued comments in this regard seven times since 2006.

Before analysing the comments of the Committee of Experts, the Employers’ group would like to highlight the importance of the Convention as one of the ten fundamental Conventions. In its content, the Convention requires that States adopt effective measures, in law and in practice, aimed at protecting freedom of association. For the Employers’ group, compliance with this Convention is extremely important, not only because it is a fundamental Convention, but also because we are convinced of the importance of promoting effective action to ensure the right to organize, and prohibit trade union discrimination and acts of interference, while promoting collective bargaining. By reflecting universal consensus and strong tripartite commitment, the Convention reminds us of the absolute importance of guaranteeing the right to organize held by both workers and employers. For the Employers’ group, it is therefore critical that all Member States comply fully with their obligations under this Convention.

Before analysing in detail the comments issued by the Committee of Experts on the status of compliance with the various Articles of the Convention, let me begin by acknowledging the sustained commitment of the Government of Nepal to the principles enshrined in this fundamental Convention, ratified in 1996. Despite the structural, institutional and social challenges the country is experiencing, we note with hope that Nepal has shown political will to advance towards full compliance with its international obligations regarding freedom of association and collective bargaining. Nevertheless, certain gaps remain, both in law and in practice.

That said, it is important to bear in mind that we have come together in this case to discuss the effective implementation of appropriate measures that meet the requirements contained specifically in Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Convention. I will therefore divide my intervention into four sections, analysing in a differential manner the international commitments deriving from each of these requirements.

First, with regard to protection against discrimination, the Government has recognized that, while there are general provisions in the 2015 Political Constitution, the 2017 Labour Act and the 1992 Trade Union Act that seek to ensure the right to equality, there is not yet an explicit prohibition in legislation against acts of trade union discrimination, coupled with dissuasive penalties.

The Employers’ group commends the establishment of a tripartite working group to review national legislation, with the participation of the representative social partners. Consequently, we take this opportunity to urge the Government to continue providing information to this Committee on progress regarding the inclusion in national legislation of an explicit prohibition of discrimination against workers on grounds of their trade union membership or participation in trade union activities. We request the Government to hold consultations with the most representative social partners when considering any changes to regulations.

As for the practice of the Convention relating to the prohibition of acts of union discrimination, we welcome the Government’s recognition of significant gaps in terms of the actual effectiveness of mechanisms to prevent acts of union discrimination. The Employers’ group nevertheless wishes to highlight the Government’s efforts to take action that is both general and specific. In general, the national labour authority has developed training programmes to improve the capacities of the labour inspectorate. More particularly, the Government indicates that it has taken specific measures in the banking and health sectors, in the form of investigations related to acts of trade union discrimination. This shows that, although legal vacuums remain, there is institutional will to enforce the law and protect trade union rights in practice.

To conclude the analysis of Article 1, we consider that, with ILO technical assistance, the Government should advance with strengthening the information systems relating to the number of cases of anti-union discrimination dealt with by the competent authorities.

Second, with regard to protection against acts of interference, the Government has taken important steps to strengthen institutional mechanisms. Initially, because the 2017 Labour Act explicitly and specifically prohibits acts of trade union interference, and secondly, through the modernization of ILMIS, which allows for complaints to be submitted electronically and anonymously, thereby improving accessibility and protection against reprisals. In addition, we understand that training programmes for inspectors and public officials have been institutionalized to identify and prevent various forms of interference in trade union activity. To conclude the consideration of this point, the Employers’ group invites the Government to continue providing information on the number of complaints filed, highlighting the penalties imposed for acts of interference in trade union organizations.

Third, with regard to the promotion of collective bargaining (Article 4 of the Convention), according to the oral and written information, progress has been made in promoting collective bargaining, owing to administrative efforts to facilitate the holding of fair elections to determine the most representative union competent to bargain collectively. Accreditation has been granted to 31 unions. In addition, it is important to highlight the implementation of ILMIS, which enables digital registration and systematic monitoring of collective bargaining agreements, thereby facilitating traceability and data generation.

We call on the Government to, with the representative social partners, continue to adopt the necessary measures to ensure the uninterrupted holding of elections to determine the most representative and competent unions to bargain collectively at the enterprise level, and to continue to provide information on the mechanisms implemented.

With regard to collective bargaining at different levels, we note the information provided by the Government on the absence of registered sectoral agreements. The Government has expressed its intention to revise section 123 of the Labour Act to clarify the applicable procedures.

In this respect, the Employers’ group wishes to highlight that the Convention does not require the promotion of a specific level of collective bargaining, but only that measures appropriate to national conditions are taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers.

In this connection, we urge the Government, in accordance with the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining established in Article 4, to establish in its regulations clear procedures for such collective bargaining, so that the determination of the level depends essentially on the will of the parties and is not imposed under legislation or administrative decisions; all the while preserving the necessary flexibility to adapt agreements to the specific realities of each sector and enterprise.

Fourth and lastly, with regard to compulsory arbitration and the composition of arbitration bodies, the Government is currently revising the regulatory framework on compulsory arbitration to increase the transparency of the system and guarantee the independence of its arbitration bodies.

It is important to emphasize that the right to negotiate, enshrined in the Convention, protects the autonomy of employers and workers in regulating their working conditions. Article 4, in particular, establishes that measures must be taken to encourage voluntary negotiation. In the same vein, the Collective Bargaining Recommendation, 1981 (No. 163) recognizes that the procedures for conflict resolution can include arbitration awards, as long as these are consistent with national practice and respect the principles.

It is in this way that compulsory arbitration is recognized as a legitimate mechanism to guarantee economic and social stability, ensuring the continuity of strategic sectors and the protection of employment. The Committee of Experts has indicated that this mechanism can be applied in exceptional circumstances.

We understand that the Government is currently developing a specific arbitration procedure to strengthen the transparency of the system and ensure the full independence of its arbitration bodies, and we thank the Government for the information provided on this subject.

Worker member, Nepal – The trade union movement in Nepal expresses its sincere concern regarding the application of the Convention in our country.

Let me begin by providing some context. Nepal ratified the Convention in 1996 but our country has not ratified Convention No. 87.

We, the trade union movement in Nepal, supported the amendment of the Labour Act and promulgation of the Act on Social Security in 2017, in the hope of creating an environment that could balance labour flexibility and job creation with strong protection of labour rights and universal social protection. However, there are significant legal gaps in the law and barriers in practice to our full exercise of trade union rights.

Today, trade union density in Nepal is about 6 per cent, with nearly 85 per cent of the workforce engaged in the informal economy. Collective bargaining agreements cover only around 10 per cent of formal sector workers. The limited coverage has resulted in wage stagnation and over-reliance on minimum wage adjustments to improve workers’ livelihood. Moreover, only about 71 per cent of enterprises comply with minimum wage provisions.

Despite legal provisions, several challenges impede the effective exercise of collective bargaining rights:

• Enforcement of arbitration decisions is rare. Labour offices are understaffed with only 11 offices and 18 inspectors nationwide. Workplace inspection is inadequate and ineffective.
• There is no legal remedy to anti-union practices, intermediation and retaliation against union leaders and members that undermine the bargaining power of workers.
• The election of an authorized union for collective bargaining has been suspended due to bureaucratic delays, lack of personnel, employer obstruction and delaying tactics.

Some processes have been prolonged for over two years, which exposes trade union organizers and members to retaliation.

Second, under the Essential Services Act, the State is vested with the power to designate any sector “essential” through notification in the Nepal Gazette. An industrial dispute in the essential services and in the special economic zones is forwarded for compulsory arbitration. There is no alternative dispute resolution or bargaining mechanism. The Government has ignored the recommendation of the Committee on Freedom of Association since 2016 to repeal this restriction. We are not allowed to strike in 25 essential services such as water supply, electricity, telecommunication, transport, health services and banking. This has been misused to suppress trade union rights rather than to safeguard public welfare.

Third, our ability to organize, represent and bargain collectively for workers and our members has been eroded by the casualization of labour. Without any regulation, outsourcing, internships, trainee programmes and platform work has grown at fast speed.

The scope of the Labour Act is limited and unable to cope with these challenges in the labour market. Workers in the informal economy and the special economic zones are also not covered by the Labour Act.

Moreover, there is a sharp decline in regular employment and a rise in outsourcing. These workers are often contractually prohibited from joining unions. They are excluded from collective agreements and user-company benefits. Interns, trainees and temporary workers are being used to replace regular employment on a large scale. Some trainees are not even paid for their work. Outsourced and temporary workers in the garment, construction, information technology business process outsourcing, transport, and health sectors are denied job security, benefits, and the right to organize. This constitutes a gross violation of the Convention.

This year, the Supreme Court of Nepal ruled that the Labour Act does not apply to the banking sector. This decision endangers the rights of thousands of workers in a sector that is highly structured, profitable and influential in Nepal’s economy – leaving them vulnerable to arbitrary dismissal, union-busting and exploitation. The Supreme Court’s ruling threatens decades of progress on labour rights and sets a dangerous precedent on mass exclusion. The Government has obligations to ensure that the application and interpretation of domestic laws are in line with the Convention.

Nepal has made important commitments to international labour standards. However, these commitments are being undermined by unregulated labour flexibilization, contradictory laws and judicial interpretations, as well as absence of oversight.

Indeed, job creation and the promotion of investment are key to improving the livelihood of workers in Nepal and retaining talent. Every year, thousands of young Nepalese are seeking employment abroad usually in precarious sectors. However, job creation must not be an excuse for exploitation.

The trade union movement in Nepal stands committed to working with the Government and social partners for holistic labour law reform. We believe the discussion in this Committee will provide the ground and framework for social partners to bring our laws and practices into line with international standards.

Worker member, Republic of Korea – I would like to draw the Committee’s urgent attention to a recent Supreme Court ruling that gravely undermined the rights that Nepalese workers should enjoy under the Convention. On 14 February 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a devastating decision on labour law applicability to the workers in the banking sector. A group of employees of the Swabalamban Bank simply sought their rightful employment protection and benefits under the Labour Act of 2017. Earlier, both the Labour Court and the Labour and Employment Office had ruled in favour of the employees, directing the bank to comply with the labour law provisions. However, the bank appealed, arguing that as a regulated financial institution under the Banks and Financial Institutions Act of 2017, it should not be subject to general labour legislation.

Nepal’s highest court, in a full bench decision led by the Chief Justice, completely reversed these rulings. The court ruled that the Labour Act does not apply to banks and the financial institutions as a whole. Even though the Labour Act defines the worker and the establishment broadly, the court found that bank employees are not workers and that banks are not establishments under this law. This decision was grounded in the fundamental legal principle that special law overrides general law, establishing that the Banks and Financial Institutions Act constitutes a comprehensive specialized regulatory framework that supersedes general Labour Act provisions.

This redefinition of the regulatory landscape for bank and financial institutions raises significant questions regarding the protection of fundamental labour rights, particularly collective bargaining and anti-union discrimination, as guaranteed by the Convention. Now, the entire workforce in the banking sector loses protections available to other workers including workers’ access to independent labour courts; protection against unfair dismissal; the right to union representation and collective bargaining; and legal mechanisms to ensure fair treatment and job security.

Furthermore, this legal approach could set a dangerous precedent for other sectors governed by the specialized legislation, potentially leading to a fragmentation of labour law application across various industries in Nepal.

This is a serious regression from Nepal’s commitment to protect workers’ rights under international law.

According to the Committee of Experts’ authoritative interpretation, the Convention covers all workers and employers in both private and public sectors regardless of whether the service is essential. The only authorized exceptions are the armed forces, police and public servants engaged in state administration. Banking employees fall into none of these categories.

A general exclusion for an entire category of workers in the financial sector from labour protections and collective bargaining is not compatible with the Convention, according to the Committee of Experts’ interpretation.

The Government must make sure that the unique regulatory environment of banks and financial institutions does not diminish fundamental labour rights that are protected by the Convention. It must ensure the universal application of the Labour Act, the general legal framework in labour relations, to all workers across sectors.

Worker member, India – I speak on behalf of Indian workers to express the concerns we share with our brothers and sisters in Nepal regarding the inability of workers in Nepal to enjoy the rights protected under the Convention. We are alarmed by the rapidly growing trend of informalization of regular employment in Nepal. Outsourcing, internship and daily labour have proliferated across sectors without any effective regulations. In some cases, 100 per cent of the employees are hired via labour outsourcing companies. These workers are not covered by the collective bargaining agreement of the user company and receive discriminatory treatment.

In a pharmaceutical company that hires 205 employees in Kathmandu, only 60 of them are provided with legal entitlements in full. The employer transferred the rest of the employees to an outsourcing company when they started demanding negotiation for equal treatment. Fifty-nine trade union activists were subsequently fired. Moreover, the outsourcing company explicitly prohibits workers from making demands that are higher than the terms already provided in the employment contract.

India and Nepal share an open border and a deep historical relationship rooted in cultural, economic, spiritual and social ties. The 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between India and Nepal permits free movement of people. However, the Treaty and the open-border arrangement, while beneficial in many ways, have increasingly become a source of concern due to the absence of formal employment arrangements between the two countries. The arrangement is often misused by employers to bypass formal labour regulations – including the obligations to engage in collective bargaining provided by Nepalese laws.

The Indian workers working across the border in Nepal are often placed to work under sub-standard conditions. Despite their significant contribution to the Nepalese economy, they often work longer hours yet are paid lower wages than their regional counterparts.

Most Indian outsourced workers in Nepal are unable to join or form unions due to fear of job loss, deportation and retaliatory measures. The informal nature of their employment further excludes them from the same right to free association and collective bargaining under Nepal’s laws. The right to collective bargaining has no meaning if it is applied only to some and not all.

We stand in solidarity with the speech of our Nepalese brother and urge the Government to ensure that same right to free association and collective bargaining is applied to all workers, regardless of their nationality and employment status. At the same time, we respectfully urge the Government to establish a formal employment mechanism, particularly for Indian migrant workers and outsourced workers, including work permits, hygienic working conditions and ethical employment contracts.

Worker member, Japan – I speak on behalf of workers in Japan joined by French workers. I will address the systematic deprivation of Nepalese workers’ rights protected under the Convention, by means of the abusive use of internships and training programmes.

In Nepal, internships and training programmes have become a shadow economy of cheap and often unpaid labour. This is not training; this is not capacity-building; this is economic exploitation.

Across sectors – healthcare, hospitality, media, law, development and even government institutions – interns are required to work full-time hours and take on responsibilities equivalent to regular employees. In some cases, they even work without pay. These young people are not protected by the Labour Act in practice. They are silenced by fear: the fear that if they speak up, their careers will be over before they begin. Many are forced to pay for the privilege of being exploited, paying for food, transportation and even training fees, while contributing their skills and time to institutions that do not recognize them as workers.

Some examples identified by the trade unions in Nepal include a renowned five-star hotel in Kathmandu, where 11 workers have been engaged as trainees continuously for over seven years on a renewed contract every six months. They are bachelor students under hotel management programmes and vocational training institutes. Despite their long-term service and regular work duties, they have been denied permanent employment status. Although the Labour Court has ruled in favour of six of the trainee workers, the employer appealed to the Supreme Court and at the same time the management dismissed one of the trade unionists involved in organizing the trainee workers in retaliation.

The Labour Act of Nepal includes a provision for permanent recruitment after 240 days of continuous work. Sections 16 to 18 of the Labour Act limit the use and terms of internships to be strictly based on the educational curriculum of no longer than three months, otherwise the interns should be regularized. Sections 17 and 18 further stipulate the access of interns and trainees to the minimum wage and benefits provisions. Yet, according to a study by GEFONT, abuse of trainee workers rose by 20 per cent compared to 2023. The law requirements for interns and trainees were not followed by 88 per cent of enterprises. I speak with a particular sense of urgency on this matter because it is a blatant violation of the Convention. The use of traineeships and internships is a measure to replace regular works, reduce labour costs and suppress unionization efforts. It fosters an environment of insecurity, wage theft and labour exploitation.

As a trade unionist from the teaching profession, I feel strongly about this matter because this is unethical. The widespread and abusive use of internships and trainees must be put under effective regulation with a guarantee of the fundamental right to freely associate and bargain collectively with the user company.

Worker member, Singapore – I stand before you to address a grave injustice that threatens the very foundations of workers’ rights and freedoms, a situation that demands our immediate attention and action to safeguard the dignity and rights of workers under the Convention.

In Nepal, the right to collective bargaining exists on paper but is denied in practice. Only 6 per cent of Nepal’s total workforce is unionized, while up to 85 per cent of the working population is employed in the informal economy. Collective bargaining agreements cover only 10 per cent of the workers in the formal economy.

The Labour Act mandates that enterprises with ten or more workers must establish a collective bargaining committee aiming to foster fair and effective negotiation between workers and employers. This provision has, however, effectively excluded the right of workers in the informal sector – 85 per cent of the working population – to bargain collectively for their occupational interests.

The Labour Act further provides for the procedures of collective bargaining and dispute settlement, yet the Government has fallen short of the measures under the Convention.

Workers in Nepal are being systematically denied their right to collective bargaining. Employers are obstructing the right through delay, rejection and outright defiance. Prohibition clauses against trade union membership are commonly found in employment contracts via the subcontractors and outsourcing companies.

In a country where jobs are scarce and critical to workers’ livelihood, such clauses represent an unfair coercion that should not be tolerated. Workers should never have to choose between their livelihoods and the right to organize. Even when collective bargaining agreements are signed, employers routinely fail to implement them with impunity.

As part of the standard legal procedure, the trade union at a five-star hotel submitted its charter of demands to the hotel management in July 2023. The management failed to respond within the legally mandated period. In accordance with the Labour Act, the union filed a case at the Labour Office after 21 days of inaction. The case was elevated to an arbitration committee which ruled in favour of the workers, directing the hotel management to implement the collective bargaining agreement.

Refusing to comply with the arbitration committee’s decision, the management engaged in continued harassment of the trade union leaders during working hours. The hotel management broke the lock of the union office and removed the union property, including the furniture and official documents. That was almost two years ago.

As per the provision, a new collective bargaining agreement should take place every two years. But due to this delay, the entire collective bargaining agreement process has been affected, including the election of the authorized union.

Let us not forget that the hotel sector is classified as an essential service under the Essential Services Act which prohibits strikes leaving workers without other means to further their interests.

We note that the Government has expressed interest in receiving ILO technical assistance relating to anti-union discrimination and collective bargaining. However, we must ensure that this interest translates into concrete actions to protect workers’ rights.

We must stand together and demand that the Nepalese Government uphold its commitment to international labour standards. Nepalese workers deserve much better. They deserve the right to organize, to bargain collectively and to work in an environment free from fear and intimidation.

In conclusion, let us remember that the strength of a nation lies in the strength of the workforce. By protecting the rights of the workers, we uphold our moral and ethical obligation and ensure a more just and equitable society.

Observer, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – I would like to open by noting with deep concern that the most representative workers organization in the United States, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), was not accredited to this Conference in an act of retaliation for their legitimate trade union activities.

We are contesting this decision in the Credentials Committee and welcome support from those committed to respect for the ILO Constitution and authentic social dialogue.

Turning to the case at hand, the Committee of Experts has once again found that Nepal’s overly broad definition of essential services is inconsistent with the Convention, denying whole categories of workers their fundamental right to engage in industrial action and bargain collectively.

It is well established by the ILO’s supervisory mechanisms that the imposition of compulsory arbitration to end a collective labour dispute violates the Convention except in a narrow set of circumstances.

One of these narrow exceptions deals with the provision of essential services, services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the population. Examples include services such as health, education, communities, telecommunications, transport, police and firefighting.

In 2016, the Nepalese Government issued a notification under its Essential Services Act declaring 17 sectors of the economy to be essential, including hotels, restaurants, casinos and banking. Today this list has been extended to 25 so-called essential services.

While we appreciate the importance of the tourism industry to Nepal’s economy, luxury hotels, resorts, casinos and restaurants clearly cannot be considered essential services within the meaning of the Convention. This misclassification has had a particularly pernicious effect for workers and Nepal’s hotel sector.

For example, in July 2023, a collective bargaining agreement was concluded between the trade unions and the management of the Radisson Hotel in Kathmandu. As per the agreement both parties agreed to provide workers with a 5.5 per cent share of their hotel’s billing revenue. However, the management failed to implement this provision for more than 14 months.

In response to the breach of this collective bargaining agreement, workers organized a three-day strike demanding the implementation of the agreed benefit. Instead of addressing the workers’ legitimate demands, the management declared the strike illegal, falsely claiming that the hotel falls under the category of essential services. Workers were also subjected to threats and intimidation.

To conclude, we strongly urge the Government to follow the Committee of Experts’ clear recommendation to amend the Trade Union Act so that the use of compulsory arbitration is properly restricted in line with the Convention. In addition, we join the Committee of Experts’ recommendation for ILO technical assistance in the hope that it will contribute to full implementation of the Convention in this country.

Observer, Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI) – Nepal ratified the Convention in 1996. Despite being urged by the Nepalese trade union movement, the Government remains reluctant to ratify Convention No. 87.

The national law, that is the Labour Act of 2017, does not contain any provision to protect workers from anti-union discrimination and interference in trade union activities or in collective bargaining processes as reported by the trade unions, including in the construction sector.

In a 140-megawatt hydro project being organized by a BWI affiliate, aside from the violations of basic labour and worker provisions, such as delayed payment of wages, limited working security coverage, lack of occupational safety and health measures and inadequate accommodation facilities, workers were faced with anti-union discrimination when they were pushing back coercive management measures during the COVID-19 outbreak, such as forcing them to work without adequate safety protective measures.

Workers were pressured by the management dissuading them from meeting union leaders, and the management avoided dialogue with the union to discuss improvement of working conditions. In the course of organizing this project site, the union submitted a ninepoint charter of demands that included occupational safety and health provisions, but the management accepted only part of the demands.

In 2020, workers staged a strike in protest of the lack of COVID-19 safety protocols. The dispute ended with the signing of a bilateral agreement that included the union’s demand for a wage rate fixed by the Labour District Committee. The following year, however, the union reported that the wage increase has not been aligned with the adjustment made by the Labour District Committee. This is a manifestation of bad faith in negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement. This bad faith in negotiation and implementation of the agreement, particularly on occupational safety and health, unfortunately resulted in two fatal accidents at the site very recently.

In another flagship government project, another BWI affiliate likewise experienced impediments to union organizing, such as the refusal of management to allow union leaders access to the work site to meet with workers, despite written requests.

Workers are discouraged to interact with union representatives.

Along with other similar cases reported before this Committee, we are requesting the Government of Nepal to ensure prohibition of anti-discriminatory action against workers exercising their rights to join a union.

Similarly, the Labour Act and the Trade Union Act should be reviewed to provide effective regulatory measures to ensure that negotiation, conclusion and implementation of collective bargaining agreements are in good faith.

Government representative – Thank you for the concern, questions and feedback expressed in a constructive spirit. We take good note of the discussion and engagements made here in this Committee. We appreciate all the social partners and Member States for their observations and support of the progress made by Nepal. They will be important guidance for us to further enhance the status of our labour market.

I would like to reaffirm to you all in front of this Committee that collective bargaining is effectively ensured in the Nepalese labour market. There may be a few stand-alone cases that do not reflect the overall scenario of the labour market. Our focus now is to revise the legal provisions in line with international obligations and a voluntary pledge made by Nepal.

In addition to the legal reform, our targeted programmes of capacity enhancement, institutional strengthening and procedural improvement are being worked on together.

The tripartite task force is engaged in the legal reform tasks in a comprehensive manner. We will soon conduct the revision and amendment of our legal provisions to clearly define antiunion discrimination, extending coverage to the informal sector. The tripartite task force is trying to find the practical solution to make this happen.

Earlier, we presented the example of prompt, effective and efficient intervention from the Government in case of violations. Our practices are based on anti-discrimination protection.

Considerable progress has been made with regard to the legal framework, capacitybuilding, enforcement mechanisms, and the data system necessary to protect freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.

Ongoing legislative reform, improved complaint and monitoring systems, targeted training and strong collaboration with social partners reflect a comprehensive and sustained approach.

As for the implementation of Article 2 of the Convention, our ILMIS remains open for anonymous complaints. This information, data and privacy of the complaints and the complainant always remain protected. Opportunities for anonymous submission prevent the chances of reprisal or intimidation. Also, even where there is no complaint, whenever the Government receives any information regarding the violation of labour rights, by any means, the Government promptly intervenes in the matter and takes necessary action effectively.

We would like to assure all the workers, employers and stakeholders that no one should hesitate or fear to lodge a complaint in case of violation.

The Government is committed to protecting the confidentiality, privacy and dignity of all.

In regard to the enterprise-level and sectoral collective agreements, I would like to reiterate that we are launching effective training, as well as awareness programmes at the national, provincial and local levels. We are eager and ready to share information on this matter.

The Government is reviewing its approach to dispute resolution and compulsory arbitration. Concerns have been raised about the scope of compulsory arbitration and its potential to limit the voluntary nature of collective bargaining. These concerns are being taken seriously and the Government is currently reviewing the relevant provisions in close consultation with the social partners.

Proposals have been submitted to limit the use of compulsory arbitration and ensure its use as a last resort in clear legally defined circumstances.

At the same time, the Government is developing a new arbitration procedure that emphasizes impartiality, transparency and adherence to the international fair trial standard. This initiative has been included in the Government’s annual budget and programme for the upcoming fiscal year beginning July 2025.

The new procedure will establish independent and transparent mechanisms for the appointment of arbitrators and the conduct of arbitration proceedings. It helps to ensure that both workers and employers have confidence in the neutrality and fairness of the arbitration process.

The Government also expresses its strong interest in continuing to receive technical assistance of the ILO in this area, particularly in designing institutional frameworks, training arbitrators and raising public awareness.

We hold the view that the collective endeavour of the Government, in partnership with employers, workers and the ILO, will result in a more comprehensive system of collective bargaining within the country.

The Government will continue to promote constructive social dialogue, support the employment to trade unions and ensure that both employers and workers can exercise their rights in a fair and equitable environment.

A further report will provide updated information, and the Government looks forward to maintaining its cooperative engagement with the ILO and its supervisory bodies.

Therefore, let me reiterate that the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining is effectively in implementation among Nepalese social partners and labour market mechanisms, despite the challenges. We are making our best effort to address the challenges through social dialogue and cooperation.

To conclude, I once again reaffirm the Government’s unwavering commitment to the effective implementation of the Convention through harmonized legal provisions, informed workers and well-functioning mechanisms for collective bargaining, complaint registration, dispute settlement and others. Thank you all for the constructive discussion today.

Employer members – The Employer members wish to thank the various speakers who took the floor and expressed their views on this issue, including the Government representative.

We trust that the Government representative will take account of the comments made during the discussion, particularly those that referred specifically to compliance in law and practice with the Convention – the Convention that brings us together today.

In the light of the comments of the Committee of Experts, and of the discussion today, the Employer members would like to recommend the following to the Government: (1) to provide information to this Committee on progress towards the inclusion in national legislation of an explicit prohibition of discrimination against workers on grounds of their trade union membership or participation in trade union activities; (2) to provide information on the number of complaints filed, highlighting the penalties imposed for acts of interference into trade union organizations; (3) to establish, in consultation with the most representative social partners, clear procedures for collective bargaining in such a way that the determination of the level depends essentially on the will of the parties and is not imposed under legislation or administrative decisions; and (4) to continue to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to give effect to the recommendations mentioned and to maintain tripartite dialogue to continue working on full compliance with the Convention.

Lastly, and to conclude my intervention, the Employers’ group recognizes the work that the Government of Nepal is doing through the adoption of legislative reforms and the implementation of national practices aimed at giving effect to the Convention. We request the Government to ensure that any legal or regulatory amendment or update envisaged is carried out in consultation with the most representative social partners and with ILO technical assistance.

Worker members – We wish to thank all the delegates who have contributed to this discussion today. In closing, the Worker members acknowledge the Government of Nepal’s recent efforts. However, we remain concerned that, nearly three decades after ratifying the Convention, Nepal has yet to establish a clear and comprehensive legal framework to protect against anti-union discrimination and acts of interference.

This legal gap acknowledged by the Government itself continues to expose workers, especially in the hospitality sector, to abuse through bogus traineeships, outsourcing and insecure contracts that deny them stable employment and the right to organize. These practices not only block access to representation and collective bargaining but also invite retaliation against union leaders who dare to defend affected workers.

Most alarmingly, the recent Supreme Court ruling excluding the entire banking and financial sector from the Labour Act further erodes fundamental labour rights for thousands.

These are not isolated issues. They reflect a systemic failure that demands urgent legislative reform and concrete action to protect workers and uphold international labour standards.

We urge the Government to act swiftly to codify explicit prohibitions and ensure that these are backed by effective enforcement mechanisms, accessible complaints procedures and dissuasive sanctions and to ensure that, as prescribed by the Convention, all workers are protected including in the hospitality sector, and the banking and financial sector.

The list of essential services must be reviewed in a manner consistent with the Convention. These amendments to the Labour Act and the Essential Services Act must be the result of full and frank consultation with the social partners.

We also highlight the pressing need to strengthen the framework for collective bargaining. While over 1,000 enterprise-level agreements have been registered and recent figures indicate renewed activity, the absence of sectoral agreements remains a significant gap.

We call on the Government to take concrete measures to promote voluntary collective bargaining at all levels, including by reviewing section 123 of the Labour Act, facilitating union elections and ensuring negotiations take place with representative trade unions.

Finally, we urge the Government to align its approach to compulsory arbitration with the Convention’s strict standards, reserving it only for exceptional cases, and to ensure that any arbitration procedure is transparent, impartial and fair. We hope to see Nepal translate its stated commitments into meaningful legislative reform and practical implementation. Given the challenges to the full implementation of the Convention remain significant and require immediate attention from the Government, our group calls on the Government of Nepal to accept a direct contacts mission.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted with concern the gaps in the protection against anti-union discrimination and the inadequate measures for the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary collective bargaining.

Taking the discussion into account, the Committee urged the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take effective and time-bound measures to:

• adopt effective legislative measures to prohibit all acts of anti-union discrimination including those based on trade union membership;
• ensure that, in law and practice, there are dissuasive sanctions in cases of anti-union discrimination;
• ensure adequate protection against acts of interference as well as the effective functioning of collective bargaining machinery in line with the Convention;
• ensure that the parties are free to negotiate, at all levels, collective agreements that improve their working conditions;
• amend the legislation so that compulsory arbitration can only take place in the situations covered by the Convention; and
• ensure that the selection procedure of the members of the arbitration bodies is transparent and guarantees their full independence.

The Committee requested the Government to avail itself of technical assistance of the ILO.

The Committee also requested the Government to report any progress to the Committee of Experts on the measures taken to implement the above recommendations in line with the Convention by 1 September 2025.

Chairperson – I have the honour of inviting the Honourable representative of the Government of Nepal to take the floor.

Government representative – I would like to thank the Committee for its support and guidance to ensure the implementation of international standards and principles in the world of work. I thank all the Worker members, Employer members and governments for their constructive engagement during the discussion.

We reaffirm our commitment to effectively protecting and promoting labour rights, including the right to organize and to bargain collectively, both in law and practice.

The principle and spirit of collective bargaining are well reflected in our legal provisions. The legal provisions have been deemed, in some cases, insufficient due to some implementation gaps. Nevertheless, we are also in the process of amending the law in consultation with the task force.

Our targeted efforts in the field are having a positive impact, with effective implementation of the legal provisions.

Nepal stands happy and ready to avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO to further strengthen the labour dynamics in the country.

We are confident that we can effectively ensure decent work with social justice with our collective efforts in the spirit of true cooperation and collaboration.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE), received on 1 September 2025, relating to the discussions held in the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference (the Conference Committee) on the application of the Convention by Nepal. The Committee also notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the International Trade Union Confederation – Nepal Affiliated Council (ITUC-NAC), received on 1 September 2025, referring to the issues examined by the Committee below.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the Committee on the Application of Standards (International Labour Conference, 113th Session, June 2025)

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Conference Committee in June 2025 concerning the application of the Convention by Nepal, during which the Conference Committee noted with concern the gaps in the protection against anti-union discrimination and the inadequate measures for the full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary collective bargaining. Taking into account the discussion, the Conference Committee urged the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take effective and time-bound measures to:

• adopt effective legislative measures to prohibit all acts of anti-union discrimination, including those based on trade union membership;
• ensure that, in law and in practice, there are dissuasive sanctions in cases of anti-union discrimination;
• ensure adequate protection against acts of interference as well as the effective functioning of collective bargaining machinery in line with the Convention;
• ensure that the parties are free to negotiate, at all levels, collective agreements that improve their working conditions;
• amend the legislation so that compulsory arbitration can only take place in the situations covered by the Convention; and
• ensure that the selection procedure of the members of the arbitration bodies is transparent and guarantees their full independence.

The Conference Committee requested the Government to avail itself of the technical assistance of the ILO and to report any progress on the measures taken to implement the above recommendations in line with the Convention to this Committee by 1 September 2025.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee previously requested the Government to take the necessary measures to introduce in the legislation an explicit prohibition of all acts of anti-union discrimination as well as effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions in case of violations. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that a tripartite committee has already started working on the revision of the Labour Act, 2017 and that another tripartite task force was established in August 2025 to undertake a comprehensive review and revision of the Trade Union Act, 1993 to address existing legislative gaps relating to protection against anti-union discrimination. The Government adds that it also plans to implement awareness-raising programmes and measures to strengthen enforcement mechanisms and grievance handling systems with technical support from the Office. The Committee notes in this regard that the ITUC and the ITUC-NAC acknowledge the initiatives undertaken but express concern as to a lack of a time-bound commitment to implement them and point to the need for effective remedies, including reinstatement. In view of the above, the Committee firmly hopes that the national legislation will be fully aligned with the Convention, including through the introduction of an explicit prohibition of all acts of anti-union discrimination (such as transfers, demotions or refusal of training) at all stages of employment (including recruitment), as well as effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions in case of violations. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect.

The Committee also requested the Government to continue to provide information on anti-union discrimination cases brought before the competent authorities and on awareness-raising activities. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that there were no cases of anti-union discrimination registered with the competent authorities during the reporting period but that the Government is committed to systematically collecting information on any future cases of anti-union discrimination and raising workers’ awareness about their rights and remedies. The Committee notes the observations of the ITUC and the ITUC-NAC in this regard, pointing to a lack of an accessible and effective complaints mechanism and the need for the Government to establish free legal support services for workers to make the complaint procedure more accessible. The Committee trusts that the Government will take concrete measures to address these concerns and requests it to provide information on the number and nature of cases of anti-union discrimination dealt with by the competent authorities, the length of the proceedings and their outcome.

Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that no formal complaints of acts of interference were submitted during the reporting period but that, in response to the concerns about possible underreporting due to lack of awareness or fear of reprisals, several measures were put in place: different types of awareness-raising programmes were conducted or are planned; a budget was allocated to adopt a code of conduct on the rights and duties of workers and employers; and a digital Integrated Labour Management Information System (ILMIS) was launched to make the registration and recording system of complaints more transparent, accessible and capable of capturing acts of interference. The Committee notes that the ITUC and the ITUC-NAC support these initiatives and consider that an independent mechanism should be established to receive and investigate complaints of interference. Welcoming the above initiatives, the Committee encourages the Government to continue to provide awareness-raising programmes and to take the necessary measures to ensure that the procedure for the examination of complaints is independent and efficient. The Committee trusts that the online system for reporting and recording complaints of interference will enable the Government to provide information on the number and nature of complaints related to acts of interference dealt with by the competent authorities and their outcome.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Negotiation with trade unions versus negotiation with non-union actors. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that preparations are ongoing to hold inclusive elections of trade unions authorized to bargain collectively, that had been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, so as to resume and regularize such elections in a transparent manner, in consultation with the social partners, and allow for bargaining only with such trade unions (as compared with non-union actors). The Government adds that, in the financial year 2024/25, 8 enterprises already held elections, 10 additional unions were certified to bargain collectively and 96 new enterprise-level collective agreements were registered. The Committee notes however the concerns expressed by the ITUC and the ITUC-NAC that the long-standing issue of elections has not yet been fully resolved, leaving many workplaces without a legitimate bargaining agent. Taking note of the above and in view of the Government’s commitment to promote and institutionalize collective bargaining, the Committee expects the elections of trade unions authorized to bargain collectively to be held without delay and to contribute to promoting collective bargaining in the country. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

Different levels of collective bargaining. The Committee previously requested the Government to bring section 123 of the Labour Act into full conformity with the Convention to ensure that parties at enterprise level can freely negotiate collective agreements to improve working conditions set in sectoral agreements. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that these concerns will be considered as part of the tripartite review of the Labour Act, which aims to facilitate both sectoral and enterprise-level bargaining, and that directives on collective bargaining are also being developed to promote free and voluntary collective bargaining at all levels. Welcoming these initiatives, the Committee trusts that the ongoing labour law reform will bring section 123 of the Labour Act fully in line with the Convention and will contribute to the promotion of free and voluntary collective bargaining at all levels, including by allowing negotiations at enterprise level to improve working conditions already set out in sectoral agreements.

The Committee also requested the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded at the sectoral level and the sectors concerned. Observing the lack of any information in this regard, the Committee reiterates its request and trusts that, in view of the Government’s commitment to promote collective bargaining at all levels, it will be in a position to collect the relevant data and provide information to this effect.

Compulsory arbitration. The Committee previously requested the Government to ensure that compulsory arbitration could only take place in the situations compatible with the Convention (in public service involving public servants engaged in the administration of the State; in essential services in the strict sense of the term; or in case of acute national crisis). The Committee notes the Government’s reiteration that the issue is currently under review by the tripartite task force revising the Labour Act and observes the concerns raised in this regard by the ITUC and the ITUC-NAC that the list of essential services is defined too broadly in the legislation and includes banking and transport sectors. In view of the above, the Committee firmly hopes that the ongoing labour law review will result in full compliance with the Convention and requests the Government to provide information in this regard.

Composition of arbitration bodies. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the development of a new arbitration procedure aims to enhance impartiality, representativeness and alignment with international standards and observes that the ITUC-NAC points to the need to ensure an independent selection process for members of the arbitration bodies. The Committee trusts that the arbitration procedure will be developed in consultation with the social partners and will ensure that the members of the arbitration bodies are selected in a transparent manner and act in full independence. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.

Technical assistance of the Office. The Committee notes the Government’s reiterated interest in continuing to receive technical assistance from the Office concerning anti-union discrimination and collective bargaining, as well as the proposal put forward by the ITUC-NAC to adopt a tripartite action plan to conduct awareness-raising activities and trainings. The Committee hopes that such continued assistance will contribute to the full implementation of the Convention in the country, in line with the comments above.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2024, published 113rd ILC session (2025)

The Committee notes the observations provided by the General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT) received on 1 September 2024, which refer to matters examined by the Committee below.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. The Committee previously requested the Government to take the necessary measures to introduce in the legislation an explicit prohibition of all acts of anti-union discrimination as well as effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions in case of violation of this prohibition. While taking due note of the indications provided by the Government concerning sections 8, 163(1)(c) and (f) of the Labour Act, 2017, and emphasizing the general nature of these provisions, the Committee notes that the Government acknowledges the absence of an explicit prohibition of anti-union discrimination. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that a tripartite task force to revise the Labour Act was recently created, in which this subject matter could be discussed. The Committee further notes that the Government expresses willingness to conduct different types of activities with respect to anti-union discrimination, such as adopting an awareness programme. In view of the above, the Committee firmly hopes that an explicit prohibition of all acts of discrimination based on trade union membership or participation in trade union activities (such as transfers, demotions or refusal of training) at all stages of employment (including recruitment), as well as effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions in case of violation of this prohibition, will be introduced into the legislation in the near future. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect.

The Committee also requested the Government to provide information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination dealt with by the competent authorities, the length of the proceedings and their outcome. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that no case was registered on this matter during the reporting period and that there is a need for more awareness in this regard among workers. The Committee requests the Government to keep providing information on anti-union discrimination cases brought before the competent authorities and recalls the importance of such information in order to assess the effectiveness of the protection afforded by the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures carried out to raise awareness among workers in this respect.

Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. The Committee previously requested the Government to provide information on the number of complaints of acts of interference examined, the duration of the procedures and the sanctions applied. The Committee notes that no case of interference has been reported. The Committee further notes the observations made by the GEFONT in this regard, namely: (i) the absence of complaints may reflect a lack of awareness among workers or underreporting due to fear of reprisals; and (ii) the Government should implement awareness programmes in this respect, as well as proactively monitor and investigate potential acts of interference by establishing a confidential and independent body. The Committee notes in this respect that the Government emphasizes the need for improving the complaint registration process and recording system, and indicates that updates are currently under development with the ILO’s technical assistance in order to have a transparent and accessible complaint mechanism and to collect information on claims related to interference. The Committee requests the Government to keep providing information on complaints related to acts of interference, as well as on any development regarding the complaint registration process and recording system.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Negotiation with trade unions versus negotiation with non-union actors. The Committee had requested the Government to provide information on the practical application of section 116(1) of the Labour Act, concerning the composition of collective bargaining committees. In particular, the Committee had requested the Government to clarify which circumstances might impede the election of the trade union authorized to bargain collectively in an enterprise and, therefore, its participation in the collective bargaining committee. The Government indicates that the trade union elections could not be held on time due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that pursuant to sections 10 to 12 of the Trade Union Rules, 1993, it is currently discussing and coordinating the new election with the stakeholders. The Committee expects that the Government will conduct the election of trade unions authorized to bargain collectively without further delay and requests to be informed in this respect. Recalling once again that negotiation with non-union actors should only be possible in the absence of trade unions at the relevant level, the Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded with trade unions in comparison with non-union actors, the sectors and the number of workers concerned.

Different levels of collective bargaining. The Committee previously requested the Government to amend section 123 of the Labour Act (which provides a special regulatory regime for collective bargaining in specific sectors) in order to ensure its compatibility with the principles of collective bargaining, which must be promoted at all levels while being free and voluntary. The Committee recalls in particular that it requested the Government to clarify how section 123(3) would allow for sectoral collective bargaining to be compatible with collective bargaining at any level whatsoever. The Committee understands, from the Government’s indication, that section 123(3) allows negotiation at all levels, except on matters where sectoral level agreements are already in force. The Committee takes note of the example provided by the Government concerning the tea production sector, where a minimum wage agreement was concluded at the sectoral level, which does not prevent collective bargaining at another level in areas that are not covered by the sectoral agreement. The Committee further notes that the Government will engage in consultations with the relevant stakeholders to ensure the effective implementation and promotion of collective bargaining at all levels. Finally, the Committee notes the observations of the GEFONT that section 123 should be amended to ensure that collective bargaining is not restricted to specific sectors or levels. Emphasizing that, in accordance with the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining enshrined in Article 4 of the Convention, the parties should be free to negotiate, at the enterprise level, collective agreements that improve the working conditions set in sectoral agreements, the Committee requests the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary measures to bring section 123 of the Labour Act into full conformity with the Convention. It requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect.

The Committee had also requested the Government to provide information on the rationale behind the selection of sectors enlisted in section 123 of the Labour Act, as well as the number of collective agreements concluded at the sectoral level in these sectors and in sectors other than those mentioned therein, so to assess the breadth of sectoral collective bargaining in the country. The Government indicates that sectoral collective bargaining was carried out in the sectors mentioned in section 123 before the incorporation of this provision in the Labour Act, hence the existence of this special regime. The Committee regrets however that the Government does not provide any information concerning the number of sectoral collective agreements in force. Recalling that collective bargaining at sectoral level should be possible in all sectors of activity covered by the Convention, the Committee is compelled to repeat its request to the Government to provide information on the number of collective agreements concluded at the sectoral level and the sectors concerned.

Compulsory arbitration. The Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that compulsory arbitration can only take place in the situations compatible with the Convention, namely: (i) in the public service involving public servants engaged in the administration of the State; (ii) in essential services in the strict sense of the term; or (iii) in case of acute national crisis. The Committee notes the Government’ s indication that the aforementioned tripartite task force will discuss the issue of compulsory arbitration as part of the revision of the Labour Act. The Committee firmly hopes that the legislation will be amended so that compulsory arbitration can only take place in the situations mentioned above. It requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this respect.

Composition of arbitration bodies. The Committee had requested the Government to clarify how the arbitration panel and tribunal differ from one another, as well as to indicate the procedure undertaken to select the worker and employer representatives to ensure the full independence of these bodies. The Government indicates that an arbitration panel is a temporary body formed to resolve a specific case, whereas an arbitration tribunal is a permanent body (however not yet established) competent to resolve several cases of a similar nature. Concerning the selection procedure of an arbitration panel’s members, the Committee notes that: (i) the Joint Trade Union Coordination Center (JTUCC) and the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FNCCI) nominate one representative each; and (ii) the Ministry nominates an official as coordinator. The Committee also notes that a specific procedure on arbitration is currently under development, including a procedure for the selection of members to ensure that the arbitration process involves independent representatives. The Committee notes that the GEFONT emphasizes the importance of transparency of this process. The Committee requests the Government to provide information concerning the development of the aforementioned procedure on arbitration, and firmly hopes that it will take the necessary measures so that the selection procedure of the members of the arbitration bodies is transparent and guarantees their full independence.

ILO’s technical assistance. The Committee notes that the Government expresses interest in receiving the ILO’s technical assistance concerning anti-union discrimination and collective bargaining. It hopes that such assistance will contribute to the full implementation of the Convention in the country.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to introduce in the legislation an explicit prohibition of all acts of anti-union discrimination and effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions in cases of violation of this prohibition. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that workers are protected against anti-union discrimination as per section 6 of the Labour Act, 2017 and section 6 of the Right to Employment Act, 2018, respectively prohibiting discriminatory treatment during employment and in relation to hiring on the grounds of religion, colour, sex, caste, tribe, origin, language or other similar grounds and that the list should be considered as non-exhaustive hence indirectly encompassing also trade union activities as one of the grounds. In addition, as per section 23(A) of the Trade Union Act, 1992, office-bearers of the working committee of trade unions at the enterprise level shall not be transferred or promoted without their consent, except in special situations. While taking due note of the elements provided by the Government, the Committee recalls that the prohibition of discrimination provided for under section 6 of the Labour Act, as well as section 6 of the Right to Employment Act and section 24 of the Constitution of 2015, do not contain an explicit prohibition of discrimination against workers by reason of their trade union membership or participation in trade union activities. In view of the above, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to introduce in the legislation: (i) an explicit prohibition of all prejudicial acts committed against workers by reason of their trade union membership or participation in trade union activities at the time of recruitment, during employment or at the time of dismissal (for example, transfers, demotions, refusal of training, dismissals, etc.); and (ii) effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions in cases of violation of this prohibition. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made thereon. It further requests the Government to provide information on the number of cases of anti-union discrimination dealt with by the competent authorities, the length of the proceedings and their final outcome.

Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to continue to provide statistics on the number of complaints on acts of interference examined and the duration of the procedures with a particular emphasis on the sanctions applied. The Committee notes that the Government, after having recalled the provisions of the Labour Act prohibiting acts of interference, indicates that during the reporting period no case of interference has been reported or brought to its attention. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of complaints, with particular emphasis on the sanctions applied in cases of acts of interference.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. Negotiation with trade unions versus negotiation with workers’ representatives. In order to fully evaluate the conformity of section 116.1 of the Labour Act with the Convention, the Committee had requested the Government to specify the conditions under which trade unions are authorized to bargain collectively and to provide information on the number of direct agreements concluded with non-unionized workers in comparison with the number of collective agreements signed with trade unions. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that section 116.1 of the Labour Act provides that any enterprise employing ten or more workers shall have a collective bargaining committee and that such a committee is comprised of: (i) a team of representatives appointed for negotiation on behalf of the elected authorized trade union of the enterprise (paragraph a); (ii) where an election for the authorized trade union could not be held or the term of the elected authorized trade union has expired, a team of representatives nominated through a mutual agreement of all the unions in the enterprise (paragraph b); or (iii) where an authorized trade union or a team of representatives could not be formed, a team of representatives supported with the signatures of more than 60 per cent of the workers working in the enterprise (paragraph c). Recalling that negotiation with non-union actors should only be possible in the absence of trade union organizations at the relevant level, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on how paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 116.1 find application in practice. In particular, the Committee requests the Government to clarify which circumstances might impede the election of the authorized trade union and as a result the exercise of its functions to appoint the team of negotiating representatives.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Government failed to provide data on collective agreements registered in the Labour Office, for the period 2018–22, with the number of workers covered. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information in this respect and to specify the number of direct agreements concluded with non-unionized workers in comparison with the number of collective agreements signed with trade unions, indicating the sectors and the number of workers covered.

Different levels of collective bargaining. In its previous comments the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 123 of the Labour Act, providing a special regulatory regime for collective bargaining in a range of specific sectors. The Committee recalls that section 123 states that “trade union associations which are active in the tea estate, carpet sector, construction business, labour provider, transportation sector or any other group of manufacturers producing similar nature of goods or service providers providing similar nature of service or business” may form a collective bargaining committee and “submit collective bargaining claims, demands to the employers' association of the concerned group of industries”. Section 123(3) additionally states that “In the case of the enterprise to which the collective agreement referred to in this section is applicable, no collective claims, Demands and agreement may be submitted and made pursuant to this Chapter”. The Committee notes that no information has been provided by the Government in this respect. The Committee wishes to remind that collective bargaining should be promoted at all levels, including both at company and sectoral levels, and that, at the same time, according to the principle of free and voluntary collective bargaining, the determination of the bargaining level is essentially a matter to be left to the discretion of the parties and, consequently, the level of negotiation should not be imposed by law. While welcoming the fact that the different provisions of the Labour Act envisage both collective bargaining at the enterprise and sectoral levels, the Committee invites the Government to provide information on how section 123(3) would allow for sectoral collective bargaining to be compatible with collective bargaining at any level whatsoever, including that of the establishment, the undertaking, the branch of activity, the industry or the regional or national levels. Furthermore, as no other reference to sectoral collective bargaining is found in the Labour Act other than the one made in section 123(1), the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the rationale behind the selection of sectors enlisted in section 123 as well as on the number of sectoral collective bargaining agreements concluded in the series of targeted sectors and in sectors others than those mentioned therein, so to assess the breadth of sectoral collective bargaining in the country.

Compulsory arbitration. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to bring the provisions under section 119 of the Labour Act relating to compulsory arbitration into full conformity with the Convention, recalling that compulsory arbitration to end a collective labour dispute is acceptable only: (i) in the public service involving public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6 of the Convention); (ii) in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; or (iii) in case of acute national crisis. Noting that the Government did not provide any information in this respect, the Committee once again requests that the Government take the necessary measures to ensure that, in accordance with the Convention, compulsory arbitration can only take place in the situations mentioned above. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress in this respect.

Composition of arbitration bodies. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information with respect to the composition of the arbitration panel (under section 119(3) of the Labour Act) and tribunal (section 120) and specifically to indicate the procedure undertaken to select the worker and employer representatives to ensure the full independence of these arbitration bodies. It also requested the Government to clarify the difference between the arbitration panel and the arbitration tribunal. The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government uses interchangeably the names of the two arbitration bodies and does not provide further information regarding the procedure undertaken to ensure their full independence. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information clarifying how the arbitration panel and tribunal differ from one another and how the procedure for selection of the members of the arbitration tribunal will be determined so as to ensure its full independence.

The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office with respect to all issues raised in the present observation.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

The Committee takes due note of the comments provided by the Government in response to the 2017 observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), as well as to the 2014 observations made by Education International. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that: (i) section 16(e) and (j) of the Education Act, 1971 (7th amendment), allows teachers of public and private schools to form unions and to bargain collectively and provides for dispute settlement, and (ii) both formal and informal sectors are covered under the new Labour Act, 2017.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take the necessary measures to introduce in the legislation: (i) an explicit prohibition of all prejudicial acts committed against workers by reason of their trade union membership or participation in trade union activities at the time of recruitment, during employment or at the time of dismissal (for example transfers, demotions, refusal of training, dismissals, etc.); and (ii) effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions in cases of violation of this prohibition. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that if any worker experiences discrimination while carrying out legitimate trade union activities, including discrimination based on ideology, religion, gender and other grounds, then he/she can file a complaint to the competent authorities as per sections 9 and 162 of the Labour Act, 2017. In addition, as per section 165 of the Labour Act, this worker has the right to appeal, against the decision. The Committee recalls that the prohibition of discrimination provided for under section 6 of the Labour Act, as well as section 24 of the Constitution of 2015, do not contain an explicit prohibition of discrimination against workers by reason of their trade union membership or participation in trade union activities. In view of the above, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to introduce in the legislation: (i) an explicit prohibition of all prejudicial acts committed against workers by reason of their trade union membership or participation in trade union activities at the time of recruitment, during employment or at the time of dismissal (for example transfers, demotions, refusal of training, dismissals, etc.); and (ii) effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions in cases of violation of this prohibition. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made thereon in its next report.

Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the sanctions applied in cases of acts of interference as well as on statistics on the number of complaints examined, the duration of the procedures and the type of penalties and compensation ordered. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the legal provisions introduced by the Labour Act under Chapter 14 have safeguarded the interest of employers and workers and have ensured the protection against interference from each other. The Committee also notes that the Government indicates that during the reporting period no case of interference has been reported or brought to its attention. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information in this regard, with particular emphasis on the sanctions applied in cases of acts of interference.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. In order to fully evaluate the conformity of section 116.1 of the Labour Act with the Convention, the Committee in its previous comments requested the Government to specify the conditions under which trade unions are authorized to bargain collectively and to provide information on the number of direct agreements concluded with non-unionized workers in comparison with the number of collective agreements signed with trade unions. The Committee notes that the Government limits itself to indicating that section 116.1 of the Labour Act provides that any enterprise employing ten or more workers shall have a collective bargaining committee and that such a committee is comprised of: (a) a team of representatives appointed for negotiation on behalf of the elected authorized trade union of the enterprise; (b) where an election for the authorized trade union could not be held or the term of the elected authorized trade union has expired, a team of representatives nominated through a mutual agreement of all the unions in the enterprise; or (c) where an authorized trade union or a team of representatives could not be formed, a team of representatives supported with the signatures of more than 60 per cent of the workers working in the enterprise. The Committee wishes to recall that: (i) direct bargaining between the enterprise and its employees with a view to avoiding sufficiently representative organizations, where they exist, may undermine the principle of the promotion of collective bargaining set out in the Convention; and (ii) where there exists a representative trade union and it is active within the enterprise or branch of activity concerned, the authorization for other worker representatives to bargain collectively not only weakens the position of the trade union, but also undermines ILO rights and principles on collective bargaining. Therefore the Committee requests once again the Government to specify the conditions under which trade unions are authorized to bargain collectively. The Committee finally notes that the Government provided data on collective agreements registered in the Labour Office, for the period 2014–17, with the number of workers covered. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information in this respect and to specify the number of direct agreements concluded with non-unionized workers in comparison with the number of collective agreements signed with trade unions, and indicating the sectors and the number of workers covered.

In its previous comments the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 123 of the Labour Act so that the principle of the autonomy of the parties is respected and that collective bargaining is possible at any level whatsoever, including that of the establishment, the undertaking, the branch of activity, the industry or the regional or national levels. Noting that the Government does not provide any information in this regard, the Committee wishes to reiterate that under the terms of Article 4 of the Convention, collective bargaining must be free and voluntary and respect the principle of the autonomy of the parties. The Committee also recalls the need to ensure that collective bargaining is possible at all levels and that legislation that unilaterally imposes a level of bargaining or makes it compulsory for bargaining to take place at a specific level raises problems of compatibility with the Convention (see 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraphs 200 and 222). In view of the above, the Committee hopes that the necessary amendments to bring section 123 of the Labour Act into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention will be adopted in the very near future.

Compulsory arbitration. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to bring the provisions under section 119 of the Labour Act relating to compulsory arbitration into full conformity with the Convention, recalling that compulsory arbitration to end a collective labour dispute is acceptable only: (i) in the public service involving public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6 of the Convention); (ii) in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population; or (iii) in case of acute national crisis. Noting that the Government did not provide any information on this respect, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that, in accordance with the Convention, compulsory arbitration can only take place in the situations mentioned above. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress in this respect.

Composition of arbitration bodies. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information with respect to the composition of the arbitration panel (under section 119(3) of the Labour Act) and tribunal (section 120) and specifically to indicate the procedure undertaken to select the worker and employer representatives to ensure the full independence of these arbitration bodies. It also requested the Government to clarify the difference between the arbitration panel and the arbitration tribunal. Noting that the Government did not provide information on these issues, the Committee reiterates its previous requests.

The Committee reminds the Government that it may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office with respect to all issues raised in its present comments.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received.

The Committee takes note of the observations provided by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication received on 1 September 2017 as well as the Government’s reply thereon. With respect to the ITUC’s allegations of a brutal attack by police to health workers during a demonstration outside the Parsa District Public Health Office in Birgunj, the Committee notes that the Government states that police intervention was necessary in order to ensure the supply of essential medicines. In this respect the Committee recalls that police intervention should be limited to cases where there is a genuine threat to public order and that governments should take measures to ensure that the competent authorities receive adequate instructions so as to avoid the danger of excessive violence in trying to control demonstrations that might undermine public order. The Committee also recalls that it had previously requested the Government to conduct an investigation in relation to issues highlighted by the ITUC in previous years concerning anti-union dismissals, threats against trade union members and the weakness of collective bargaining given that collective agreements only cover a very small percentage of workers in the formal economy. The Committee requests the Government to communicate the findings of such investigation as well as information on the eventual remedies adopted. It also requests the Government to provide its comments with respect to the observations made by Education International in 2014.

Legislative reforms. The Committee notes that a new Constitution was adopted in 2015 and that a new Labour Act (Labour Act 2074), adopted on 4 September 2017, has repealed the Labour Act 1992. The Committee notes with interest that sections 17(2)(d) and 34(3) of the new Constitution provide that the rights to form a trade union, to participate in it, and to organize collective bargaining are fundamental rights. It also observes that section 8 of the new Labour Act recognizes the right to form a trade union, to participate in its activities and to acquire its membership or get affiliated with or involved in other union activities.

Article 1 of the Convention. Adequate protection against anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to take measures to introduce in the legislation provisions that would explicitly prohibit all acts of anti-union discrimination covered by the Convention. The Committee notes with regret that while section 24 of the new Constitution as well as section 6 of the new Labour Act prohibit discrimination, none of them contains an explicit prohibition of discrimination against workers by reason of their trade union membership or participation in trade union activities. The Committee recalls, as it has done previously, that Article 1 of the Convention guarantees workers’ adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination and that the existence of legal provisions prohibiting acts of discrimination is not enough if they are not accompanied by effective and rapid procedures to ensure their application in practice (see the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions, paragraph 190). The Committee is therefore compelled to repeat its request to the Government to take the necessary measures to introduce in the legislation: (i) an explicit prohibition of all prejudicial acts committed against workers by reason of their trade union membership or participation in trade union activities at the time of recruitment, during employment or at the time of dismissal (e.g. transfers, demotions, refusal of training, dismissals, etc.); and (ii) effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions in cases of violation of this prohibition. Reminding the persistence of allegations of acts of anti-union discrimination, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made thereon in its next report.

Article 2. Adequate protection against acts of interference. The Committee had previously requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to introduce in the legislation a prohibition of acts of interference as well as rapid appeal procedures and dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The Committee notes that section 92(1) of the new Labour Act provides that employers and trade unions shall not perform or cause to perform any unfair labour practice and welcomes that section 92(2)(e) provides that, any act by the employer regarding intervention or cause to intervene in the activities relating to the formation, operation and administrative functions of trade unions, shall be deemed to be unfair labour practice. The Committee also notes that section 162 of the said Act, provides that where any person, employer, worker or officer acts in violation of the Act, the person affected by such act or the concerned trade union, with written consent of the affected person, may file a complaint to the competent authority having the power to decide within six months from the date of such act. Emphasizing the importance of ensuring effective protection against acts of interference and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against such acts, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the sanctions applied in cases of acts of interference as well as on statistics on the number of complaints examined, the duration of the procedures and the type of penalties and compensation ordered.

Article 4. Promotion of collective bargaining. The Committee notes that section 116.1 of the new Labour Act provides that any enterprise employing ten or more workers shall have a collective bargaining committee that may submit collective claims or demands in writing to the employer on issues relating to the interest of workers. It notes that such a committee is comprised of: (a) a team of representatives appointed for negotiation on behalf of the elected authorized trade union of the enterprise; (b) where an election for the authorized trade union could not be held or the term of the elected authorized trade union has expired, a team of representatives nominated through a mutual agreement of all the unions in the enterprise; or (c) where an authorized trade union or a team of representatives could not be formed, a team of representatives supported with the signatures of more than 60 per cent of the workers working in the enterprise. The Committee recalls that direct bargaining between the enterprise and its employees with a view to avoiding sufficiently representative organizations, where they exist, may undermine the principle of the promotion of collective bargaining set out in the Convention. In addition, it has noted in practice that where there exists a representative trade union and it is active within the enterprise or branch of activity concerned, the authorization for other worker representatives to bargain collectively not only weakens the position of the trade union, but also undermines ILO rights and principles on collective bargaining. In order to fully evaluate the conformity of section 116.1 of the new Labour Act with the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to specify the conditions under which trade unions are authorized to bargain collectively and to provide information on the number of direct agreements concluded with non-unionized workers in comparison with the number of collective agreements signed with trade unions.

The Committee notes that the new Labour Act contains special provisions with respect to collective bargaining for trade union associations which are active in the tea estate, carpet sector, construction business, labour provider, transportation sector or any other group of manufacturers or service providers with similar or related activities. Section 123 of the Act stipulates that those trade union associations may, by forming a collective bargaining committee, submit collective bargaining claims or demands to the employers’ association of concerned group of industries. Section 123(3) provides that in those enterprises it is prohibited to submit collective claims or demands and entering into agreement pursuant to the abovementioned sections of the Chapter on Settlement of Collective Disputes of the Labour Act. The Committee also notes that, as stipulated in section 123(4), in cases concerning such enterprises, the Ministry may issue an order to submit collective claims or demands and negotiate within a specified time. The Committee recalls that under the terms of Article 4 of the Convention, collective bargaining must be free and voluntary and respect the principle of the autonomy of the parties. The Committee also recalls the need to ensure that collective bargaining is possible at all levels and that legislation that unilaterally imposes a level of bargaining or makes it compulsory for bargaining to take place at a specific level raises problems of compatibility with the Convention (see General Survey, op. cit., paragraphs 200 and 222). Highlighting that when collective bargaining takes place at different levels, coordination mechanisms can be put in place, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to amend section 123 of the new Labour Act so that the principle of the autonomy of the parties is respected and that collective bargaining is possible at any level whatsoever, including that of the establishment, the undertaking, the branch of activity, the industry or the regional or national levels.

Compulsory arbitration. The Committee recalls that its previous comments concerned provisions from the draft National Labour Commission Act, a draft that has not been adopted, as well as section 30 of the Trade Union Act, which gives special powers to the Government to restrict trade union activities considered against the economic development of the country. With respect to the latter, the Committee had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken so as to ensure that compulsory arbitration is not imposed at the initiative of the authorities where they consider that the country’s economic development so requires. The Committee observes that the new Labour Act contains provisions relating to compulsory arbitration. As provided for in section 117, the Collective Bargaining Committee shall hold consultations on the claims submitted and that, if an agreement is reached, it shall be binding for both parties. For its part, sections 118 and 119(1) provide that, if no agreement is reached and where the dispute is not resolved through mediation, it shall be settled through arbitration as follows: (i) if the parties agree to settle the dispute through arbitration; (ii) if it concerns an enterprise providing essential services; (iii) if it concerns an enterprise located inside the special economic zone; or (iv) if it concerns a situation where strike is prohibited because there is a state of emergency declared as per the Constitution. For its part, section 119(2) also provides that, where the Ministry has a ground to believe that a financial crisis may take place in the country as a result of ongoing or possible strike or lockout or believes that the dispute needs to be settled by arbitration, the Ministry, irrespective of the state of the collective dispute, may issue an order for the settlement of the dispute through arbitration. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, pursuant to the promotion of free and voluntary negotiation established by Article 4 of the Convention, compulsory arbitration to end a collective labour dispute is acceptable only if it is at the request of both parties involved in a dispute or in the case of disputes in the public service involving public servants engaged in the administration of the State (Article 6 of the Convention), in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population or in case of acute national crisis. The Committee regrets that the newly adopted Labour Act is not in line with this principle. It therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that, in accordance with the Convention, compulsory arbitration can only take place in the situations mentioned above.

Composition of arbitration bodies. The Committee notes that section 119(3) of the new Labour Act provides that, for all cases in which arbitration takes place, the Ministry of Labour and Employment may form an arbitration panel ensuring representations from workers, employers and the Government. The Committee also notes that section 120 provides that, for the purpose of settling collective disputes though mediation and arbitration, the Government may form an independent labour arbitration tribunal and that provisions in relation to such tribunal shall be prescribed. Recalling that arbitration bodies shall be fully independent, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information with respect to the composition of the said arbitration panel and tribunal and specifically to indicate the procedure undertaken to select the worker and employer representatives. It also requests the Government to clarify the difference between the arbitration panel (section 119(3)) and the arbitration tribunal (section 120).

Measures to promote collective bargaining. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, detailed information on the measures taken or contemplated to promote collective bargaining as well as on the impact of the recently adopted Labour Act on collective bargaining and agreements reached. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to provide data on the number of collective agreements concluded, their scope and sectors concerned and the number of workers covered.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee takes note of the observations provided by Education International (EI) in a communication received on 31 August 2014 and requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard. The Committee notes that the Government has not responded to the points raised by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in previous years in relation to anti-union dismissals, threats against trade union members and the weakness of collective bargaining since collective agreements only cover a very small percentage of workers in the formal economy. The Committee requests the Government to conduct an investigation in relation to these matters and to communicate its findings as well as information on the eventual remedies adopted.

The Committee recalls that in its previous observation, it had noted that the Government was in the process of drafting a new Constitution and that it would strive to ensure that the laws and regulations were compatible with the Convention. The Committee takes note that in its report, the Government indicates that tripartite consultations are under way to amend the Labour Act, 1992. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments on the drafting of the new Constitution as well as on the amendment of the Labour Act, 1992, indicating any impact on the issues raised below.

Article 1 of the Convention. Anti-union discrimination. In its previous report the Government had indicated that maximum protection against acts of anti-union discrimination will be explicitly ensured through the upcoming labour market reform and the revision of the related laws by the tripartite task force. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates in its report that the constitutional provision concerning discrimination, together with section 23(a) of the Trade Union Act and section 53(6) of the Civil Service Act concerning transfers, are the sole provisions regarding this matter. The Committee underlines that this protection does not fulfil the requirements of Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee recalls, as it has done so previously, that Article 1 of the Convention guarantees workers adequate protection against all acts of anti-union discrimination and that legislation prohibiting acts of discrimination is inadequate if it is not coupled with effective, expeditious procedures and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to ensure their application (see General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, 1994, paragraphs 223 and 224). The Committee therefore, once again, requests the Government to take the necessary measures to introduce in the legislation: (i) an explicit prohibition of all prejudicial acts committed against workers by reason of their trade union membership or participation in trade union activities at the time of recruitment, during employment or at the time of dismissal (e.g. transfers, demotions, refusal of training, dismissals, etc.); and (ii) effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions in cases of violation of this prohibition. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made thereon in its next report.

Article 2. Acts of interference. The Committee had noted that the Government had indicated that the issue of anti-union interference was an issue to be addressed in the course of the labour market reform. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that there are about 286 trade unions registered at the Department of Labour which are affiliated to 12 trade union federations and seven trade unions of civil employees; that a total of 86 new unions have been added over the last eight years demonstrates, in its view, the Government’s non-interference in the establishment of trade unions and its adherence to the principle of not placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee reiterates its previous comments and requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to introduce in the legislation a prohibition of acts of interference contemplated in Article 2 of the Convention, as well as rapid appeal procedures and dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made thereon in its next report.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. Compulsory arbitration. The Committee had previously noted that, according to section 9(4) of the draft National Labour Commission Act, the National Labour Commission will have the power, in applying the Essential Services Act, 1957, and section 30 of the Trade Union Act, to arbitrate interests disputes in the hotel and transportation sectors as well as in cases where the authorities consider that the economic development of the country so requires. The Committee had recalled that compulsory arbitration to end a collective labour dispute is acceptable only if it is at the request of both parties involved in a dispute or in the case of disputes in the public service involving public servants engaged in the administration of the State or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population. The Committee reiterates its previous comments and requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that compulsory arbitration can only take place in accordance with the abovementioned principles and to provide a copy of the National Labour Commission Act once adopted.

Composition of arbitration bodies. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 6 of the draft National Labour Commission Act provides that the Appointment Committee responsible for determining the composition of the National Labour Commission shall consist, inter alia, of two persons duly nominated by the Federation of Nepal Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The Committee had requested the Government to avoid any reference to the Federation of Nepal Chamber of Commerce and Industry or to any other organization in the draft National Labour Commission Act, and to refer rather to the “most representative” employers’ organization. The Committee had noted that the Government indicated in its previous report that it welcomed this suggestion. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made thereon in its next report.

Measures to promote collective bargaining. The Committee notes that in its report, the Government highlights its efforts to ensure collective bargaining and indicates that it finalized in August 2013 an agreement on the new minimum wage for industrial workers and workers at tea estates after necessary tripartite consultations. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, detailed information on the measures taken or contemplated to promote collective bargaining as well as statistical data on the scope of the collective agreements that have already been concluded, and the number and categories of workers covered.

The Committee reminds the Government that, if it so wishes, it may have recourse to the technical assistance of the Office to address the legal issues raised above.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 24 August 2010 concerning anti-union dismissals, threats against trade union members and the weakness of collective bargaining, since collective agreements only cover a very small percentage of workers in the formal economy. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations thereon in its next report.

In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that articles 12 and 30 of the Interim Constitution, which entered into force in 2007, guarantee the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining. Noting also that the Civil Service Ordinance Act had been amended by the Civil Service Act, so as to restore the right of public employees (up to Gazetted Third Class) to organize and bargain collectively, the Committee had requested the Government to specify which categories of public employees included in the gazetted and non-gazetted classes were covered by the legislative recognition of the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that civil servants from the lowest level up to the highest level (i.e. gazetted third class) can exercise the right to organize and collective bargaining. The Committee also notes that the Government indicates that it is in the process of drafting a new Constitution and that it will strive to ensure that the laws and regulations are compatible with the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next report, examples of collective agreements concluded by civil servants as well as information on any progress made in that respect in the framework of the legislative reform.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that pursuant to article 53(1) of the Civil Service Act, civil employees have the right to form a trade union at the national level and that pursuant to article 53(3), the “authentic trade union of civil employees shall have the right to submit own professional demands and conduct social dialogue and collective bargaining at the concerned institution at the district, departmental and national levels”. The Committee notes that this section further indicates that in the case of not forming the “authentic trade union of civil employees”, the “trade union of civil employees” formed pursuant to paragraph (1) may conduct collective bargaining with mutual consent of each other. The Committee requests the Government to clarify in its next report the distinction between “authentic trade unions of civil employees” and other trade unions of civil employees, and to provide information on the procedure established to determine the most representative organization of civil employees entitled to collective bargaining, if any.

Finally, in its previous observation, the Committee had raised certain issues in relation to the Draft National Labour Commission Act, in the following way.

Article 1 of the Convention. Anti-union discrimination. In its previous observation, the Committee had noted from the Government’s report that based on the constitutional provision concerning discrimination and article 23(a) of the Trade Union Act 1992, which explicitly discourages anti-union discrimination in respect of employment, there have hardly been any acts of anti-union discrimination brought to the notice of the authorities. The Committee had also noted that the Government had indicated that maximum protection against acts of anti-union discrimination will be explicitly ensured through the upcoming labour market reform and the revision of the related laws by the tripartite task force. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the provision of the Constitution on discrimination, together with article 23(a) of the Trade Union Act are the sole provisions regarding this matter. The Committee recalls that Article 1 of the Convention guarantees workers adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination and that legislation prohibiting acts of discrimination is inadequate if it is not coupled with effective, expeditious procedures and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions to ensure their application (see General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 223 and 224). The Committee therefore, once again, requests the Government to take the necessary measures to introduce in the legislation: (i) an explicit prohibition of all prejudicial acts committed against workers by reason of their trade union membership or participation in trade union activities at the time of recruitment, during employment or at the time of dismissal (e.g. transfers, demotions, refusal of training, dismissals, etc.); and (ii) effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions in cases of violation of this prohibition. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made thereon in its next report.

Article 2. Acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had raised the need to ensure the enactment of a provision providing protection to workers’ and employers’ organizations against acts of interference by one another, including effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions guaranteeing adequate protection of trade unions against acts of interference in their establishment, functioning or administration and, in particular, against acts that are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the objective of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee had noted from the Government’s report that although there is no explicit provision against such activities in the legislation, interference is hardly practised; and that the issue shall be addressed in the course of the labour market reform. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that the labour market reform has not been completed but that it is fully aware of the concerns of the Committee in this respect. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to introduce in the legislation a prohibition of acts of interference, as well as rapid appeal procedures and dissuasive sanctions against such acts. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made thereon in its next report.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. Compulsory arbitration. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that, according to article 9(4) of the draft National Labour Commission Act, the National Labour Commission will have the power, in applying the Essential Services Act 1957 and article 30 of the Trade Union Act, to arbitrate interests disputes in the hotel and transportation sectors as well as in cases where the authorities consider that the economic development of the country so requires. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide information in this respect in its report. The Committee recalls that compulsory arbitration to end a collective labour dispute or a strike is acceptable only if it is at the request of both parties involved in a dispute or if the strike in question may be restricted – i.e. in the case of disputes in the public service involving public servants exercising authority in the name of the State or in essential services in the strict sense of the term, namely those services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population (General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 256–258). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that compulsory arbitration can only take place in accordance with the abovementioned principles and to provide information on any progress made thereon in its next report.

Composition of arbitration bodies. In its previous observation, the Committee had noted that Article 6 of the draft National Labour Commission Act provides that the Appointment Committee responsible for determining the composition of the National Labour Commission shall consist, inter alia, of two persons duly nominated by the Federation of Nepal Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The Committee had recalled that any decision concerning the participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations in a tripartite body – especially one entrusted with mediation, conciliation and arbitration proceedings – should be taken in full consultation with all the organizations whose representativity has been objectively proven, with a view to ensure that the tripartite body enjoys the confidence of these organizations. The Committee had requested the Government to avoid any reference to the Federation of Nepal Chamber of Commerce and Industry or to any other organization in the draft National Labour Commission Act, and to refer rather to the “most representative” employers’ organization. The Committee notes that the Government indicates in its report that it welcomes this suggestion. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made thereon in its next report.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the conformity of the National Labour Commission Act with the abovementioned principles as regards all the abovementioned issues and to provide a copy of the Act once adopted.

Measures to promote collective bargaining. In its previous observation, the Committee had noted from the Government’s report that Strategy No. 3.2.6 of the Labour and Employment Policy 2062 states that collective bargaining – which included at that time 155 collective agreements at the level of plants and eight at national level – will be encouraged through legal and institutional provisions and by building an environment conducive to the organization of workers and employers in the informal economy. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide any further information in this respect in its report. The Committee therefore, once again, requests the Government to provide, in its next report, information on the measures taken or contemplated to promote collective bargaining as well as statistical data on the scope of the collective agreements that have already been concluded, and the number and categories of workers covered.

The Committee reminds the Government that, if it so wishes, it may have recourse to the technical assistance of the Office to address the legal issues raised above.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes with interest from the Government’s report and the comments made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in a communication dated 29 August 2008, that the Interim Constitution which entered into force in 2007 guarantees in Articles 12 and 30 the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining. Moreover, the Civil Service Ordinance Act which previously revoked the right of public servants to form and belong to trade unions, has been amended by the Civil Service Act thus restoring the right of public employees (up to Gazetted Third Class) to organize and bargain collectively. The Committee requests the Government to specify the categories of public employees included in the gazetted and non-gazetted classes and which ones are covered by the legislative recognition of the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining.

The Committee also takes note of the National Directive Act, 1962 and the Civil Service Act communicated by the Government. The Committee will comment on them once a translation is available. Finally, the Committee takes note of the draft National Labour Commission Act drafted by a national tripartite task force on the basis of widespread consultations, in order to address shortcomings in the system of grievance and dispute resolution. The Committee raises certain issues in relation to this draft Act below.

Article 1 of the Convention. Anti-union discrimination. The Committee’s previous comments concerned the need for provisions providing explicit protection against acts of anti-union discrimination, accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that based on the constitutional provision concerning discrimination and section 23(a) of the Trade Union Act, 1992, which explicitly discourages anti-union discrimination in respect of employment, there have hardly been any acts of anti-union discrimination brought to the notice of the authorities. However, maximum protection will be explicitly ensured through the upcoming labour market reform and the revision of the related laws by the tripartite task force. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated in order to introduce in legislation: (i) an explicit prohibition of all prejudicial acts committed against workers by reason of their trade union membership or participation in trade union activities at the time of recruitment, during employment or at the time of dismissal (e.g. transfers, demotions, refusal of training, dismissals, etc.); and (ii) effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions in cases of violation of this prohibition.

Article 2. Acts of interference. The Committee’s previous comments concerned the need to ensure the enactment of a provision providing protection to workers’ and employers’ organizations against acts of interference by one another, and including effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions guaranteeing adequate protection to trade unions against acts of interference in their establishment, functioning or administration and, in particular, against acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the objective of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that interference is hardly practised in Nepal although there is no explicit provision against such activities in the legislation. The issue shall be addressed in the course of the labour market reform. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken or contemplated in order to introduce in the legislation a prohibition of acts of interference as well as rapid appeal procedures and dissuasive sanctions against such acts.

Article 4. Collective bargaining. 1. Compulsory arbitration. The Committee notes that according to section 9(4) of the draft National Labour Commission Act, this National Labour Commission will have the power, in applying the Essential Services Act, 1957 and section 30 of the Trade Union Act, to arbitrate interests disputes in the hotel and transportation sectors as well as in cases where the authorities consider that the economic development of the country so requires. The Committee recalls that compulsory arbitration imposed either at the request of one party to a dispute or by the authorities at their own initiative, raises problems with regard to the application of Article 4 of the Convention (General Survey of 1994 on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraphs 256–258). The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate in its next report the measures taken to address the set of provisions noted above in the context of labour market reform so as to ensure that compulsory arbitration is not imposed at the initiative of one party to an interests dispute in the hotel and transportation sectors or at the initiative of the authorities where they consider that the country’s economic development so requires; compulsory arbitration would only be acceptable in essential services in the strict sense of the term and for public servants exercising authority in the name of the State.

2. Composition of arbitration bodies. The Committee notes that section 6 of the draft National Labour Commission Act provides that the Appointment Committee responsible for determining the composition of the National Labour Commission shall consist, inter alia, of two persons duly nominated by the Federation of Nepal Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The Committee considers that any decisions concerning the participation of workers’ and employers’ organizations in a tripartite body – especially one entrusted with mediation, conciliation and arbitration proceedings – should be taken in full consultation with all the organizations whose representativity has been objectively proved. The Committee considers, thus, that the members of the Appointment Committee should not be determined by reference to a specific organization by name, but rather to the “most representative” organization. The Committee therefore requests the Government to avoid any reference to the Federation of Nepal Chamber of Commerce and Industry or any other organization in the draft National Labour Commission Act, and to refer rather to the “most representative” employers’ organization.

3. Measures to promote collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that according to the ITUC, although the Labour Act provides for collective bargaining, the necessary structure for the implementation of the provisions is not in place. The Committee notes that in its latest comments of August 2008, the ITUC indicates that owing to a combination of worker inexperience and employer reluctance, there is, in fact, little collective bargaining and the related agreements only cover around 10 per cent of workers in the formal economy. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that strategy No. 3.2.6 of the Labour and Employment Policy 2062 states that collective bargaining (which now includes 155 collective agreements at the level of plants and eight at national level) will be encouraged through legal and institutional provisions and by building an environment conducive to the organization of workers and employers in the informal economy. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the impact of these measures as well as any further measures taken to promote collective bargaining and to provide statistical data on the scope of the collective agreements which have already been concluded.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and in particular the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 1990 (now amended through the newly reinstated House of Representatives (HOR) declaration) which guarantees its citizens the right to freedom of association.

1. Comments of the International Confederation of Free Trade Union (ICFTU). The Committee notes the comments made by the ICFTU in a communication dated 10 August 2006 on the application of the Convention. The comments concern: (1) the restrictions on the trade union rights that were suspended by the state of emergency following the coup d’état on 1 February 2005; (2) the amendments made to the Civil Service Ordinance Act of 1992 on 14 July 2005 which would forbid the formation of any association or union of civil servants except for those specified by the Government and undercuts the ability of civil servants to collectively bargain by unilaterally determining conditions of employment in the civil service; and (3) the fact that although the Labour Act provides for collective bargaining, the structure to implement the necessary provisions are not in place. The Committee requests the Government to provide its observations on the comments made by the ICFTU.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. Anti-union discrimination. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the issue of legislative protection against anti-union discrimination and had expressed the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary steps to ensure the enactment of a provision providing explicit protection against anti-union discriminations, accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee notes that the Government states that: (1) committees will be instituted for the revisions of the relevant legislation which will note the Committee’s comments; and (2) it will inform the Committee of any further developments. The Committee requests once again the Government to keep it informed of further developments in this regard and in particular the progress of the work of the Labour Law Review committee considering the issue.

3. Article 2. Acts of interference. In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to ensure the enactment of a provision providing protection to workers’ and employers’ organizations against acts of interference by one another, and including effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions guaranteeing adequate protection to trade unions against acts of interference in their establishment, functioning or administration and, in particular, against acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organization under the domination of employer’s organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the objective of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employer’s organization. The Committee notes that the Government states that the advice of the Committee will be taken care of during the next amendment and in the meantime, the issue will be discussed in various tripartite forums to reach a consensus. The Committee requests once again the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.

4. Article 4. Collective bargaining. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to abrogate section 30 of the Trade Union Act, which gives special powers to the Government to restrict trade union activities considered against the economic development of the country. The Committee notes that the Government states that section 30 of the Trade Union Act is an emergency preventive measure, that this section has never been invoked and put into practice yet, that this provision is not meant to restrict trade union rights, that it will not be invoked against their interest and that this issue will be discussed with the social partners during subsequent legislative reform. However, the Committee recalls that the section confers without ambiguity broad powers to the authorities which could impair the guarantees set out in the Convention, and requests once again the Government to take the necessary measures to abrogate section 30 of the Trade Union Act in the near future and to keep the Committee informed of developments in this regard.

5. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the Government to provide a copy of the Essential Services Act, 1957, which seemed to impose restrictions on the right to organize and bargain collectively. The Committee notes that the Government states that the main intent of the Essential Services Act is to safeguard the rights of the public to the essential services and not to curtail the rights of workers’ unions, that it becomes equally necessary to ensure that the rights of the other party are adequately taken care of and that some provisions should be in place to safeguard larger public interest and save the country in time of crisis and emergency. The Committee requests once again the Government to provide it with a copy of the Essential Services Act, 1957, even if the English version is not available.

6. Article 6. In its previous comments, the Committee had asked the Government to provide copies of the National Directive Act, 1962, the Civil Service Act, examples of collective agreements concerning employees of the public enterprise or public institution employing civil servants not engaged in the administration of the State and copies of Acts concerning the right to organize and bargain collectively of teachers and other civil servants who do not fall within the ambit of the Civil Service Act. The Committee notes that the Government states that: (1) employees of public enterprises are recruited according to their own respective laws and regulations and are not staffed by civil servants; (2) the Civil Service Act does not apply to them, therefore they can exercise their rights to organize and collective bargaining; and (3) the teachers of the public schools, though they are government employees, can exercise the right to collective bargaining. The Committee notes that the reinstated Parliament has declared that up to gazetted civil servants up to the second class will be allowed trade union rights, that the Government has already presented the amended civil service act bill in Parliament to this effect and that the civil servants at the non-gazetted level (now proposed up to second-class level) are enjoying these rights with their own separate union. The Committee requests once again the Government to provide copies of the mentioned Acts, even if a translation in English is not available, and to indicate the civil servants categories included in the first-class level.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report.

Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the issue of legislative protection against anti-union discrimination will be addressed by law reform committees and once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary steps, in the near future, to ensure the enactment of a provision providing explicit protection against anti-union discrimination, accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of further developments in this regard and in particular the progress of work of the labour law review committee considering the issue.

Article 2. The Committee had asked the Government to ensure the enactment of provisions providing protection to workers’ and employers’ organizations against acts of interference by one another. The Committee notes that the Government states that this issue will be discussed in various tripartite forums to reach a consensus and that the advice of the Committee of Experts will be taken into account during the next legislative amendment. The Committee once again requests the Government to ensure the enactment of a provision providing protection to workers’ and employers’ organizations against acts of interference by one another, and including effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions guaranteeing adequate protection to trade unions against acts of interference in their establishment, functioning or administration and, in particular, against acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the objective of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee requests to be kept informed of developments in this regard.

Article 4. The Committee notes the Government’s statements that section 30 of the Trade Union Act, which gives special powers to the Government to restrict trade union activities considered against the economic development of the country, is an emergency preventive measure that has never been invoked or put into practice, is not meant to restrict trade union rights and will not be invoked against their interests. The Committee notes the Government’s intention to discuss this issue with its social partners during legislative reforms. Recalling that the section confers broad powers which could impair the guarantees set out in the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to abrogate section 30 of the Trade Union Act in the near future and to keep the Committee informed of developments in this regard.

In its previous comments the Committee had requested a copy of the Essential Service Act, 1957, which seems to impose restrictions on the right to organize and bargain collectively. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that the main intent of the Essential Service Act is to safeguard the rights of the public to essential services and not to curtail the rights of unions, and that the Government’s opinion is that some provisions should be in place to safeguard larger public interests and save the country in times of crisis and emergency. Noting the Government’s indication that it would ensure that the application of this in practice yields merit for the workers and employers as well as the nation as a whole, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide it with a copy of the Essential Service Act, 1957.

Article 6. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted the information provided by the Government that civil servants who discharge their duties in the name of the Government do not have the right to organize and had recalled that only public servants who, by their functions, are directly employed in the administration of the State may be excluded from the scope of the Convention. The Committee notes the clarification provided by the Government that employees of public enterprises and teachers at public schools, although government employees, are employed under Acts separate from the Civil Service Act and so are entitled to exercise their rights to organize and bargain collectively, and that civil servants at the non-gazetted level enjoy the same rights. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide copies of the National Directive Act, 1962, the Civil Service Act and examples of collective agreements concerning employees of the public enterprises or public institutions employing civil servants not engaged in the administration of the state. The Committee further requests the Government to provide copies of the Acts concerning the rights to organize and bargain collectively of teachers and other civil servants who do not fall within the ambit of the Civil Service Act.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the Government’s report.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee had pointed out that section 23(a) of the Trade Union Act of 1999 limits the protection against anti-union discrimination to cases of transfer of trade union representatives and had considered that the legislation does not cover the following situations: (i) anti-union discrimination against workers in general; (ii) anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment; and (iii) dismissals on anti-union grounds. The Committee notes that the Government intends to send these observations to a committee duly formed to review the labour legislation and indicates that an explicit provision as a result of this review would be inserted in the 1992 Trade Union Act.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will take the necessary steps to ensure that the provision is accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions against acts of anti-union discrimination. It reminds the Government that it may seek technical assistance from the ILO in this process if it so wishes. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any further developments in this regard.

2. Article 2. The Committee had pointed out that neither the 1992 Trade Union Act as amended in 1999 nor the 1992 Labour Act contain provisions providing protection to workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations. The Committee notes that according to the Government it will send the Committee’s observation on this issue to the labour law review committee mentioned above and that a specific provision would be inserted in the next amendment of the 1992 Trade Union Act.

The Committee requests the Government to ensure that the provision is accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, to guarantee adequate protection to trade unions against acts of interference in their establishment, functioning or administration and in particular against acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed, in its next report, of any progress made in this respect.

3. Article 4. In its previous comments, the Committee had requested the abrogation of section 30 of the Trade Union Act which gives special powers to the Government to restrict trade union activities considered against the economic development of the country and which has never been put into practice. In its report, the Government reiterates the arguments of its previous report and states that this provision is a safeguard necessary for a developing country like Nepal and that it would never be invoked against the interest of the workers. The Committee considers that this legislation confers broad powers, which could impair guarantees set out in the Convention. The Committee requests, once again, the Government to take measures for the abrogation of section 30 of the Trade Union Act in the near future.

The Committee requests the Government once again to forward a copy of the Essential Service Act, 1957, which seems to impose restrictions on the right to organize and bargain collectively.

4. Article 6. The Committee had noted the information provided by the Government according to which the Trade Union Act is not applicable in the case of public servants involved in the administration of State affairs or in essential services determined by the Government. The Committee notes that according to the Government employees of the public enterprises have the right to organize and form unions under the National Directive Act, 1962, while civil servants who discharge their duties in the name of the Government, do not have that right (Civil Service Act 1993). The Committee recalls that only public servants who, by their functions, are directly employed in the administration of the State may be excluded from the scope of the Convention but that all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to forward examples of collective agreements that concern employees of the public enterprises or public institutions employing civil servants not engaged in the administration of the State. The Committee also requests the Government to provide a copy of the 1962 National Directive Act and the Civil Service Act.

The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will, as soon as possible, take the measures necessary to bring its legislation into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee had noted that section 23(a) of the Trade Union Act of 1999 limits protection against anti-union discrimination to cases of transfer of trade union representatives. It pointed out that the legislation does not cover: (i) anti-union discrimination against workers in general; (ii) anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment; and (iii) dismissals on anti-union grounds. The Committee had noted that efforts are being made to discourage anti-union discrimination against workers in recruitment, dismissal or any other circumstances that may jeopardize union members solely due to their involvement in trade union activities and that the Government is considering the imposition of sanctions to curtail such anti-union discrimination. Recalling that the Government should ensure that provisions respecting anti-union discrimination in conformity with the Convention are adopted and are accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, the Committee requests that the Government specify in its next report which measures have been taken in this regard. The Committee hopes to be in a position to note progress in the near future.

2. Article 2. The Committee had noted once again that neither the 1992 Trade Union Act and the 1999 amendment nor the 1992 Labour Act contain provisions providing protection to workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations. It also noted the information provided by the Government in its report according to which it is fully committed to protect and safeguard rights and interests of workers involved in trade union activities. The Committee recalls that states which have ratified the Convention are under the obligation to take specific action, in particular through legislative means, to ensure respect for the guarantees laid down in Article 2. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to ensure that provisions accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions are adopted which guarantee the adequate protection of trade unions against acts of interference in their establishment, functioning or administration and in particular against acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee the application of Article 2 and to keep it informed, in its next report, of any progress made in this regard.

3. Article 4. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 30 of the Trade Union Act gives special powers to the Government to restrict trade union activities considered against the  economic development of the country. The Committee had noted the Government’s indication that this section has never been invoked or put into practice as yet and that such restrictions can be made only in extraordinary or unusual situations, which may undermine peace and tranquillity or may hamper the socio-economic development process of the country. The Government had also informed the Committee that trade unions believe that some restrictions have been imposed on their right to organize and bargain collectively under the Essential Service Act, 1957. However, according to the Government, such restriction is essential to safeguard public interest and save the country from being economically sabotaged due to an unruly strike, especially in the essential service sector. The Committee took note of this information and asked the Government to forward a copy of the Essential Service Act. It also requests the Government to take measures for the abrogation of section 30 of the Trade Union Act.

4. Article 6. The Committee had noted the information provided by the Government according to which the Trade Union Act is not applicable in the case of public servants involved in the administration of state affairs or in essential services determined by the Government. The Committee recalls that only public servants who, by their functions, are directly employed in the administration of the State may be excluded from the scope of the Convention but that all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report whether the right to organize and to collective bargaining of public servants not employed in the administration of the State is guaranteed in the national legislation and, if so, to forward a copy of the relevant provisions.

5. The Committee recalls the comments made by the General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT) in a communication dated 29 August 1998, regarding the application of this Convention. GEFONT had referred to various enterprises or corporations where, after signing a collective agreement, the employers refused to implement it and the Minister of Labour and the concerned authorities failed to intervene. In view of the fact that the Government has not responded to these comments, the Committee can only urge once again the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the terms of these collective agreements are respected.

The Committee once again expresses the firm hope that the Government will, as soon as possible, take the measures necessary to bring its legislation into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee takes note of the information contained in the Government’s report.

1.  Article 1 of the Convention.  The Committee had noted that section 23(a) of the Trade Union Act of 1999 limits protection against anti-union discrimination to cases of transfer of trade union representatives; it pointed out that the legislation does not cover: (i) anti-union discrimination against workers in general; (ii) anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment; and (iii) dismissals on anti-union grounds. The Committee notes that efforts are being made to discourage anti-union discrimination against workers in recruitment, dismissal or any other circumstances that may jeopardize union members solely due to their involvement in trade union activities and that the Government is considering the imposition of sanctions to curtail such anti-union discrimination. Recalling that the Government should ensure that provisions respecting anti-union discrimination in conformity with the Convention are adopted and are accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, the Committee requests that the Government specify in its next report which measures have been taken in this regard. The Committee hopes to be in a position to note progress in the near future.

2.  Article 2.  The Committee notes once again that neither the 1992 Trade Union Act and the 1999 amendment nor the 1992 Labour Act contain provisions providing protection to workers’ organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations. It also takes note of the information provided by the Government in its report according to which it is fully committed to protect and safeguard rights and interests of workers involved in trade union activities. The Committee recalls that states which have ratified the Convention are under the obligation to take specific action, in particular through legislative means, to ensure respect for the guarantees laid down in Article 2. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to ensure that provisions accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions are adopted which guarantee the adequate protection of trade unions against acts of interference in their establishment, functioning or administration and in particular against acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers’ organizations under the domination of employers’ organizations, or to support workers’ organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers’ organizations. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee the application of Article 2 and to keep it informed, in its next report, of any progress made in this regard.

3.  Article 4.  In its previous comments, the Committee noted that section 30 of the Trade Union Act gives special powers to the Government to restrict trade union activities. The Committee takes note of the Government’s indication in its report that this section has never been invoked or put into practice as yet and that such restrictions can be made only in extraordinary or unusual situations, which may undermine peace and tranquillity or may hamper the socio-economic development process of the country. The Government also informs the Committee that trade unions believe that some restrictions have been imposed on their right to organize and bargain collectively under the Essential Service Act, 1957. However, according to the Government, such restriction is essential to safeguard public interest and save the country from being economically sabotaged due to an unruly strike, especially in the essential service sector. The Committee takes note of this information and asks the Government to forward a copy of the Essential Service Act. It again requests the Government to indicate in its next reports cases in which section 30 of the Trade Union Act has been invoked to restrict collective bargaining rights as well as the circumstances of these cases.

4.  Article 6.  The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government in its report according to which the Trade Union Act is not applicable in the case of public servants involved in the administration of State affairs or in essential services determined by the Government. The Committee recalls that only public servants who, by their functions, are directly employed in the administration of the State may be excluded from the scope of the Convention but that all other persons employed by the Government, by public enterprises or by autonomous public institutions should benefit from the guarantees provided for in the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report whether the right to organize and to collective bargaining of public servants not employed in the administration of the State is guaranteed in the national legislation and, if so, to forward a copy of the relevant provisions.

5.  The Committee recalls the comments made by the General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT) in a communication dated 29 August 1998, regarding the application of this Convention. GEFONT had referred to various enterprises or corporations where, after signing a collective agreement, the employers refused to implement it and the Minister of Labour and the concerned authorities failed to intervene. In view of the fact that the Government has not responded to these comments, the Committee can only urge once again the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the terms of these collective agreements are respected.

The Committee expresses the firm hope that the Government will, as soon as possible, take the measures necessary to bring its legislation into full conformity with the provisions of the Convention, and requests it to provide information in its next report on all measures adopted in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. As it is aware that the Trade Union Act has been amended, the Committee hopes that the Government will send a full report to the Committee for its next session.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the new section 23(a) of the Trade Union Act of 1999 limits protection against anti-union discrimination to cases of transfer of trade union representatives. It does not cover: (i) anti-union discrimination against workers in general; (ii) anti-union discrimination at the time of recruitment; and (iii) dismissals on anti-union grounds. Furthermore, there are no sanctions for violation of this provision. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that provisions respecting anti-union discrimination in conformity with the Convention are adopted and are accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.

2. Article 2. The Committee notes that neither the 1992 Trade Union Act and the 1999 amendment nor the 1992 Labour Act contain provisions providing protection to workers' organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations. The Committee recalls that governments which have ratified the Convention are under the obligation to take specific action, in particular through legislative means, to ensure respect for the guarantees laid down in Article 2 (see 1994 General Survey on freedom of association and collective bargaining, paragraph 230). The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that provisions accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions are adopted which guarantee the adequate protection of workers' organizations against acts of interference in their establishment, functioning or administration and in particular against acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers' organizations under the domination of employers' organizations, or to support workers' organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers' organizations. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.

3. Article 4. The Committee had requested the Government to indicate whether federations and confederations have the right to bargain collectively. The Committee takes due note of the fact that the new section 9(B)(e) of the Trade Union Act allows trade union associations and federations to negotiate with the concerned enterprises and management on behalf of the enterprise-level trade union.

4. The Committee notes that section 30 of the Trade Union Act gives special powers to the Government to restrict trade union activities. The Committee asks the Government whether section 30 has ever been invoked to restrict collective bargaining rights and, if so, to indicate the circumstances of these cases.

5. Article 6. The Committee requests the Government to indicate if its legislation grants public servants, with the sole possible exception of those engaged in the administration of the State, the right to conclude collective agreements with their employers.

6. The Committee takes note of the comments made by the GEFONT (General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions) in a communication dated 29 August 1998, regarding the application of this Convention. The GEFONT refers to various instances where, after signing a collective agreement, the employers refuse to implement it and the Minister of Labour and the concerned authorities fail to intervene. The GEFONT refers specifically to the collective agreements signed by the Independent Transport Workers' Association of Nepal (ATWAN), by the Cotton Development Board of Khajura-Western Nepal, by Rolly Garment and the Rolly Garment Independent Textile-Garment Workers' Union, by Giri Bandhu Tea Estate and New Giri Bandhu Tea Estate of Jhapa-Eastern Nepal, by the Kathmandu Metropolitan Corporation and finally by Bagmati Textile of Kathmandu. In view of the fact that the Government has not responded to these comments, the Committee can only assume that GEFONT's observations are correct. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary means to ensure that the terms of these collective agreements are respected, and to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its first report. The Committee also notes the comments made by the General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions (GEFONT) in a communication dated 29 August 1998.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that neither the Trade Union Act of 1992 nor the Labour Act of 1992 contain provisions which guarantee the protection of workers against acts of anti-union discrimination by employers. The Committee therefore would request the Government to ensure that specific provisions, accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, are adopted to guarantee explicitly the protection of workers against any act of anti-union discrimination by employers, both at the time of recruitment and during employment, so as to bring its legislation into conformity with Article 1. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of developments in this regard.

2. Article 2. The Committee notes that neither the 1992 Trade Union Act nor the 1992 Labour Act contain provisions providing protection to workers' organizations against acts of interference by employers or their organizations. The Committee recalls that governments which have ratified the Convention are under the obligation to take specific action, in particular through legislative means, to ensure respect for the guarantees laid down in Article 2 (see 1994 General Survey on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining, para. 230). The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure that provisions accompanied by effective and sufficiently dissuasive sanctions, are adopted which guarantee the adequate protection of workers' organizations against acts of interference in their establishment, functioning or administration and in particular against acts which are designed to promote the establishment of workers' organizations under the domination of employers' organizations, or to support workers' organizations by financial or other means, with the object of placing such organizations under the control of employers or employers' organizations. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress made in this regard.

3. Article 4. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether federations and confederations have the right to bargain collectively.

4. Article 6. The Committee requests the Government to indicate if its legislation grants public servants, with the sole possible exception of those engaged in the administration of the State, the right to conclude collective agreements with their employers.

5. The Committee requests the Government to reply to the comments made by the GEFONT, regarding the application of this Convention in a communication dated 29 August 1998.