Editor’s Note:
Almost all the South Asian nations are currently overhauling their labour laws. Trade unions in countries such as Sri Lanka and India have been actively protesting against the reform process. Unions claim that they were not consulted meaningfully and that the changes introduced in the name of reforms enable ‘hire and fire’ practices and remove many existing labour rights won through long struggles.
In India, the central trade unions continue to oppose the implementation of the new labour codes, despite them having already been gazetted. In Sri Lanka, unions are seeking for meaningful engagement with the government. In Bangladesh, the interim (previous) government under Mohammad Yunus, formed a tripartite labour commission and undertook the reform process.
The recent amendments to the Bangladesh Labour Act, first promulgated through a Presidential Ordinance on November 17, 2025, and subsequently ratified by Parliament on April 10, 2026, introduced sweeping changes to the country’s labour law framework.
While met with some caution, these reforms have been widely regarded as a potential game changer. The amendments strengthen several existing protections and notably expand the scope of the law by incorporating new categories of workers within its legal definition.
In this review, AKM Nasim, a member of the Labour Reform Commission, delves deep into Bangladesh’s new labour law and offers a critical analysis.
Workers’ rights in Bangladesh are governed by two distinct legal frameworks: the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006, and the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones (EPZ) Labour Act, 2019. The Bangladesh Labour Act (BLA) covers most formal sector workers, who account for only 15%–20% of the country’s workforce. This leaves the vast majority of informal sector workers outside the ambit of legal protection.
In contrast, more than half a million workers in the country’s Export Processing Zones fall under the Bangladesh Export Processing Zones Labour Act, 2019. Notably, this law does not grant workers the right to form trade unions; instead, it allows for the formation of workers’ welfare associations (WWAs), which fall short of the standards established under ILO Conventions 87 and 98, both of which Bangladesh has ratified.
In the past two years, the landscape of labour rights in Bangladesh has undergone significant transformation.
Following the political transition after the 2024 uprising that forced Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to resign, the Interim Government signalled a strong commitment to structural reforms by establishing a Labour Reform Commission (LRC) and ratifying three key International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions: C155 on Occupational Safety and Health, C187 on the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health, and C190 on Violence and Harassment. The Labour Reform Commission submitted its report to the Government in April 2025, presenting comprehensive recommendations to advance labour sector reforms.
As part of this reform agenda, an ordinance amending the Bangladesh Labour Act, 2006 (BLA) was promulgated on November 17, 2025. The amendment process was subsequently completed with the passage of the revised Act by Parliament on April 10, 2026. The amendment introduced approximately 90 modifications, deletions, and new insertions into the BLA, reflecting a broad and substantive effort to reform the existing legal framework.
Origins of the Reform
The current wave of reforms can be traced back to June 2019, when a formal complaint was filed under Article 26 of the ILO Constitution by several workers’ delegates under the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). This mechanism represents one of the most serious supervisory procedures within the ILO system. The complaint alleged that Bangladesh had failed to comply with key conventions, including Convention No. 81 on Labour Inspection, Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association, and Convention No. 98 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining.
This development followed years of limited progress despite sustained pressure from national trade unions, global labour federations, and international stakeholders. Trade unions have consistently argued that the previous legal framework failed to provide adequate protection of fundamental rights, particularly freedom of association and collective bargaining, and that enforcement of existing provisions remained weak and inconsistent.
In practice, workers were often systematically denied these rights. The unions undertook sustained efforts to maintain pressure, including evidence-based documentation of violations, national and international advocacy, and active engagement with government authorities as well as international stakeholders.
In response, the ILO Governing Body requested that the Government of Bangladesh submit a time-bound roadmap outlining concrete reform measures. The government complied with this request on May 23, 2021.
The roadmap identified four priority areas: comprehensive labour law reform, improvement of trade union registration processes, strengthening of labour inspection and enforcement mechanisms, and, addressing persistent concerns, such as anti-union discrimination and violence against workers.
Recent amendments to the Bangladesh Labour Act are a direct outcome of international commitments and continued advocacy by trade unions. These reforms aim to bring national legislation closer to compliance with ILO Conventions 87 and 190.
As part of the same roadmap, the Government of Bangladesh is now expected to proceed with amendments to the Export Processing Zone Labour Act, addressing longstanding concerns regarding freedom of association in export processing zones.
Expanded Worker Benefits and Protections
Amendments to the Bangladesh Labour Act of 2006 have introduced a wide range of progressive measures that significantly expand both the scope of legal protection and the tangible benefits available to workers. One of the most notable developments is the extension of the Act’s applicability to previously excluded sectors, including a broad range of care-based and service-oriented institutions, such as hospitals, clinics, diagnostic centres, and facilities serving vulnerable populations.
This expansion ensures that a larger segment of the workforce is now covered by formal labour protections. Equally important is the partial recognition of domestic workers as “workers” under the law, albeit for limited purposes, such as compensation for workplace injuries and the right to organise and bargain collectively.
While this recognition is not comprehensive, as domestic workers have not been ensured many of the rights available to other workers, including minimum wages, regulated working hours, holidays, and service benefits for past service, it nevertheless represents meaningful progress toward acknowledging a historically excluded and highly vulnerable group within the legal framework.
In terms of economic security, the amendments introduced meaningful improvements to compensation and benefit structures across different stages of employment:
Lay-off and Death Compensation: Eligibility for lay-off compensation was significantly reduced from a previous one-year requirement to only three months of continuous service, and the compensation rate is now stabilised to be at least half of the basic wages regardless of the lay-off duration. Similarly, eligibility for death compensation has been broadened by reducing the minimum service requirement from two years to one.
Separation Benefits: A landmark inclusion is the introduction of compensation for dismissed workers, granting those with at least one year of service the right to receive fifteen days’ wages for each completed year. Additionally, resignation benefits were enhanced, allowing workers to receive graded compensation based on their length of service.
Worker Stability: Workers are provided greater stability through the extension of the eviction notice period from employer-provided housing to six months.
The amendments also strengthen workplace rights, social protection, and overall well-being. The introduction of safeguards against unsafe work through the new provision on methods of work empowers workers to refuse hazardous tasks without fear of retaliation, reinforcing the right to a safe and healthy working environment. Maternity benefits have been modestly increased from 112 to 120 days, while the number of festival holidays has been expanded to 11 to 13 days, reflecting recognition of workers’ need for rest and social participation.
Structural improvements, such as the requirement to adjust minimum wages every three years, the expansion of the check-off system to all registered trade unions, and the establishment of an Employment Injury Scheme Fund, collectively enhance income security and institutional support mechanisms. Additionally, the mandatory formation of safety committees in all establishments (which was only for factories earlier) with fifty or more workers signals a broader shift toward strengthening occupational safety for workers.
Taken together, these reforms represent a significant advancement in worker welfare, even though effective implementation and resolution of certain ambiguities will ultimately determine their real impact.
Formalising Definitions of Workplace Abuse
The introduction of several new definitions in the amended Bangladesh Labour Act reflects a clear legislative intent to address long-standing gaps in the recognition and regulation of workplace abuse.
By formally defining concepts such as forced or compulsory labour, violence and harassment, gender-based violence, sexual harassment, and blacklisting, the law moves closer to alignment with international labour standards and responds to persistent concerns regarding worker exploitation, dignity, and safety.
In particular, in alignment with Convention 190, the Act introduces formal definitions of violence and harassment, gender-based violence, and sexual harassment, marking a significant step toward addressing workplace misconduct in a comprehensive manner. These definitions, along with related consequential provisions, establish an essential legal foundation for identifying and addressing abusive practices that were previously inadequately articulated, if not entirely absent, in the law.
This development is highly significant for workers, particularly in fostering safer and more inclusive workplaces. However, the practical impact of these provisions will depend largely on the timely framing of clear and detailed rules; until then, many of these progressive measures risk remaining confined to paper.
“Worker” Definition and Freedom of Association
Recent amendments to the Bangladesh Labour Act of 2006 have introduced important conceptual and structural changes to the definition of “worker” and the framework governing freedom of association (FoA) and collective bargaining. A central pillar of the 2025/2026 reforms is an attempt to strengthen freedom of association and workplace democracy.
These changes reflect an effort to broaden legal coverage, modernise labour relations, and align more closely with international labour standards. However, while several provisions represent clear progress, they also give rise to legal ambiguities and practical challenges that may affect implementation.
One of the most significant developments is the revision of the definition of “worker” under section 2(65). The amended definition adopts a broader and more inclusive approach by covering any person, including an apprentice, employed directly or through a contractor to perform skilled, unskilled, manual, technical, promotional, or clerical work for remuneration, regardless of designation. Under the amended framework, personnel classified as managerial, administrative, or supervisory under Section 2(49)(b) are excluded from the definition of worker.
However, this raises concerns regarding classification. Distinguishing between persons who genuinely exercise managerial, administrative, or supervisory powers and those who do not may lead to disputes and inconsistent enforcement. In this regard, although the Bangladesh Labour Rules, 2015 attempt to define persons exercising managerial, administrative, and supervisory powers, the guidance remains vague and lacks precision, potentially giving rise to significant interpretational challenges.
Further expansion is evident in the amended definition of “worker” under section 175(1) for the purposes of Chapter XIII on trade unions. This provision extends coverage to self-employed workers and individuals engaged through digital labour platforms. While the inclusion of platform workers reflects evolving labour market realities, their selective inclusion only within the trade union chapter, rather than the general scope of the Act, creates a fragmented approach that may lead to inconsistencies in legal protection.
Institutional Changes to Worker Representation
The amendments introduced important changes to the institutional framework governing the workforce organisation. The revised definition of “trade union” under section 2(15) now includes not only trade unions of workers but also associations of persons employed in the establishment who do not fall within the definition of “worker”.
This is complemented by sections 175 and 176, which guarantee workers the right to form and join trade unions without discrimination, while also extending to managerial, administrative, and supervisory personnel the right to form associations relating to their professional interests. This dual framework represents a significant conceptual shift toward recognising different forms of representation in the workplace.
The key area of reform concerns the requirements for the formation and registration of trade unions. While at least 20 workers may jointly apply for registration, the minimum membership threshold is now structured into five tiers based on the total workforce size. For smaller establishments (up to 300 workers), a minimum of 20 members is required, which can represent anywhere from 100 percent down to 6.7 percent of the workforce. This minimum then escalates for larger workplaces, requiring 40 members for 301 to 500 workers, 100 members for 501 to 1,500 workers, 300 members for 1,501 to 3,000 workers, and 400 members for any establishment over 3,000 workers.
Although initially hailed as revolutionary, a closer examination reveals that this tiered structure produces abrupt and disproportionate increases at the margins. For example, a workplace with 300 workers requires only 20 members, but an increase of just one worker to 301 raises the required membership to 40. Similarly, the requirement jumps from 40 members at 500 workers to 100 members at 501 workers, resulting in fluctuating and, in some cases, higher proportional thresholds. These inconsistencies risk undermining the goal of facilitating union formation and expanding freedom of association.
Practical challenges related to verification and classification further complicate the process of union formation. Although the amendment requires employers to certify the number of workers upon request, this measure does not adequately address the longstanding issue of access to reliable workforce data. Without the ability to inspect worker registers, which employers are legally required to maintain, and a clear differentiation between workers and managerial or supervisory personnel, disputes over eligibility and membership are likely to persist. These challenges are particularly significant in light of the expanded definition of “worker” and the inclusion of “officers,” which make classification more complex.
The amendment also permits the formation of trade unions across a group of establishments with a minimum of 20 workers, representing a significant shift in the union formation process.
Another important development is the requirement for confederations to obtain registration. By explicitly including confederations within the statutory definition of trade unions, the amendment brings them under the regulatory framework of Chapter XIII. While this may enhance formal recognition and oversight, it also introduces additional administrative obligations for higher-level labour organisations.
Multi-Level Bargaining
The amendments significantly expand the scope of collective bargaining beyond the enterprise level, representing a potentially transformative shift in labour relations. New provisions allow for multi-level bargaining, which means federations and confederations, not just individual workplace unions, can negotiate across sectoral and national levels.
However, the effectiveness of this expansion is constrained by critical legal gaps: Firstly, the law fails to define what constitutes the “other level” of bargaining. Secondly, it does not establish clear criteria for determining which federations or confederations are entitled to represent workers at these higher levels. Thirdly, in sectors with multiple federations, the absence of an accreditation or recognition mechanism creates a high risk of competing claims and inter-union disputes over who has the right to negotiate.
Moreover, there is no requirement for federations or confederations to demonstrate representativeness through verifiable membership data. This omission raises serious concerns regarding effective representation in collective bargaining and the enforceability of agreements reached at the sectoral or national levels. The absence of a structured mechanism comparable to the enterprise-level CBA determination process further exacerbates these challenges.
At the enterprise level, although the procedure for determining the CBA remains unchanged, the reduced thresholds for union registration may significantly alter outcomes. A union representing a relatively small proportion of the workforce may now become the sole CBA, raising concerns about representativeness. Simultaneously, an anticipated increase in the number of trade unions is likely to impose substantial administrative pressure on the Department of Labour, particularly in conducting CBA elections within prescribed timelines in cases where more than one union exists in an establishment or a group of establishments.
Future Outlook
This is a limited review of the amendments, focusing only on selected vital issues. While the 2025/2026 amendments represent a good-faith attempt to modernise the Bangladesh Labour Act and strengthen freedom of association, significant gaps remain.
The failure to incorporate several key recommendations of the Labour Reform Commission (LRC) is notable. Although the Government of Bangladesh had initially indicated that these recommendations would guide legislative reform, the final amendments reflect only a limited incorporation of those proposals.
The practical impact of these reforms will depend heavily on the timely framing of implementation rules and the effectiveness of enforcement institutions, including the newly established Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Authority.
While the amendments are broadly welcomed, they should be approached with caution. In the coming days, a range of challenges and practical difficulties are likely to emerge, which will need to be carefully monitored for future reform and adjustment.
To realise the intended benefits of these reforms and fully address the concerns of the Article 26 complaint, future efforts must focus on sustained tripartite dialogue, achieving greater legal clarity, and establishing stronger enforcement mechanisms.
