KATHMANDU, Jan 2: A debate has emerged regarding the necessity of party-specific trade unions for government employees, following remarks made by Shyam Ghimire, the Chief Whip of the Nepali Congress Parliamentary Party, and Mahesh Bartaula, the Chief Whip of the CPN-UML Parliamentary Party. Both expressed the view that such unions are not necessary during a meeting of the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee. Their statements have sparked a discussion on whether or not government employees need a union based on political affiliation.
Several employee organizations, affiliated to different political parties, have issued a joint statement in protest of the remarks made by Ghimire and Bartaula. They warned lawmakers against showing what they termed ‘arrogance.’ Employee leaders aligned with various political parties have interpreted the statements as representing the views of the Nepali Congress and the CPN-UML.
Administration expert Sharada Prasad Trital stated that no other country in the world, except Nepal, allows the formation of employee organizations based on affiliation to political parties. Trital argued that civil servants do not form trade unions linked to political affiliations anywhere else in the world. He said, “In some countries, assistant-level employees may form organizations, but these are generally professional associations, not political trade unions.” However, employee leaders contend that no one should have the right to strip them of their trade union rights.
Indu Sharma Paudel, the Deputy General Secretary of the Nepal Civil Servants Union, recalled the significant role employees played during the 2006 people’s movement. Paudel emphasized that the right to form trade unions was granted after that movement, and no one has the authority to take away this right, which was legally recognized by the seven-party coalition government led by then-Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala.
Bill bars local units from recruiting civil servants
Poudel also pointed out that the positive contributions made by trade unions should not be overlooked. While acknowledging that there may have been shortcomings in the way some unions have operated, Paudel insisted that their core rights cannot be abolished.
The Civil Service Act of 2049 was amended after the 2062/63 BS movement to allow the formation of trade unions by employees. Section 53 of the Act states, “Civil servants may form trade unions subject to this Act.”
According to the law, civil servants, except for gazetted officers who hold positions as head of office, are allowed to form unions at the national level to protect their professional interests.
Currently, there is a debate on whether to continue or remove the provisions relating to trade union rights for civil servants in the draft Federal Civil Service Act, which the government is preparing. According to sources from the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration, the draft has gone through multiple amendments. At different stages, provisions regarding trade union rights for employees have been included or excluded. Initially, the rights were removed, but they were reinstated after employees’ protests.
In addition to the legal and procedural discussions, the government has provided land to employee unions affiliated with major political parties to build office buildings. These unions include the Nepal Civil Employees Organization (affiliated to the CPN-UML), the Nepal Civil Employees Union (affiliated to the Nepali Congress), the National Employees Organization (affiliated to the Maoist Center), and the Nepal Madhesi Civil Employees Forum (affiliated to the Madhes-centric parties). Each union has been allocated one ropani of land near Singha Durbar to construct office buildings, with some buildings reaching up to 4.5 stories. The unions reportedly generate over one lakh rupees per month from renting out these buildings, but they have not paid any revenue to the government.
The land allocation began during the tenure of then Prime Minister Jhalanath Khanal in 2068 BS when the Council of Ministers decided to grant one ropani of land each to the Nepal Civil Employees Organization, the Nepal Civil Employees Union, and the Nepal Madhesi Civil Employees Forum. Later, in 2071 BS, when Dr. Baburam Bhattarai became the prime minister, the Council of Ministers also provided 7 annas and 1 paisa of land near Singha Durbar to the National Employees Organization. The government’s intent was that the tenure of the land would last as long as the respective employee associations existed.
While the UML and Maoist-affiliated employee organizations were provided land with occupancy rights in front of Singha Durbar, unions linked to the Nepali Congress and Madhes-centric parties were given land in Babarmahal. Some of these organizations have converted their occupancy rights into lease agreements. The Madhesi Employee Forum, for example, has leased four floors of their building to the Loktantrik Samajbadi Party (LSP), while retaining the remaining space for their own offices.
Although the government had previously called for the conversion of land tenure into leases, none of these employee organizations have paid any revenue to the government for their land or buildings. This has raised concerns about the transparency and accountability of the unions, especially given their profitable ventures.
As the discussion continues, the future of party-specific employee unions remains a key issue in Nepal's political and administrative landscape. The outcome of the debate could have significant implications for both civil servants’ rights and the way labor unions function in the country.
