FROM PAGE 1

introduced an addendum stating that “regardless of whether they are designated as an employee or an officer”, a person exchanging labour for remuneration is a worker. This explicitly included those with supervisory duties.

The only exception was a person responsible for the management or control of the establishment, who would be considered the employer.

For about five months, supervisors and managers explicitly enjoyed rights including termination benefits, paid maternity leave, and collective bargaining.

However, on April 10 this year, parliament passed an amended version of the ordinance as the new Labour Act 2026, omitting managers and supervisors from the definition of a worker.

The current definition of a worker is “any person, including an apprentice, regardless of whether the terms of their employment are express or implied, who is employed in any establishment or industry, either directly or through a contractor [...] however, all persons shall be included herein except for any person appointed under sub-clause [b] of clause [49] of section 2”.

Section 2 (49)(b) of the act states that an “owner” includes any person responsible for the management, supervision, and control of the establishment.

Critics argue that this reclassifies those with supervisory duties as part of management, rather than the workforce.

For example, someone who supervises cooks in a cafeteria kitchen, or oversees a fleet of drivers for a rental car agency, can be deprived of labour rights by the actual owners of the establishment. To challenge this, they would need to go to a labour court.

The labour reform commission, formed by the interim government, in its final report submitted to the then chief adviser, recommended tightening the definition of “owner” in the law.

The commission, chaired by Syed Sultan Uddin Ahmed, executive director of the Bangladesh Institute of Labour Studies, recommended replacing the word “owner” in the law with “employer”, stating that this should “refer only to that person who holds the final authority regarding the appointment of personnel, dismissal from service, and determination of the terms of employment”.

The commission’s final report further said, “All persons in administrative or management roles falling outside this definition shall be considered ‘officers’.

“The labour law shall apply to everyone except the ‘employer’, and they shall come under the purview of legal rights and protections applicable under the labour law.”

AKM Nasim, country programme director of Solidarity Centre Bangladesh and a member of the now-defunct labour reform commission, said the amendment to the ordinance passed by parliament on April 10 was introduced suddenly.

“The definition in the interim-era ordinance was agreed upon during discussions at the Tripartite Consulting Council [TCC]. This new change doesn’t reflect those discussions.”

The TCC was a 60-member committee comprising representatives from workers, employers, and the government, activated in 2025 to amend the labour law, among other things.

Taslima Akhter, coordinator of the Bangladesh Garment Sramik Samhati and also a member of the reform commission, said this part of the new law rolls back who is entitled to legal rights as a worker.

“This change was made with the readymade garments sector in mind, so that companies do not have to extend labour rights to line chiefs and supervisors. But we need to think beyond just the garments sector. This labour law applies to the entire workforce of the country.”

Additionally, though the interim-era ordinance allowed unions and collective bargaining agents to represent workers in court, Solidarity Centre, upon review, found that the newly passed law no longer allows this.

Kalpana Akhter, executive director of Bangladesh Center for Workers’ Solidarity, said, “Typically the labour leaders could represent workers as their lawyers in court to ease their access to justice. We are looking at this change critically, but we are waiting for the labour rules to be published, which would better flesh out how this change will impact workers’ access to the labour courts.”

Meanwhile, large establishments are no longer required to provide provident funds. The previous ordinance made provident funds mandatory in establishments with over 100 employees. Provident funds are now only mandatory if two-thirds of workers demand them.