University Employee Union Expresses Disagreement with Government Ordinance

Kathmandu. The recently introduced ordinance by the government has made arrangements to remove the official representation of employee unions, professor unions, and student unions from the senates of all universities. This is an edited excerpt of a conversation with Chhatra Bahadur Karki, President of the Tribhuvan University Employees Union, about the employee union's views on this arrangement and its potential impact:

The ordinance to amend some Nepal Acts related to universities, recently issued by the government, includes provisions to remove representatives of employee organizations, professor unions, and student unions from the senates of Tribhuvan University and all other universities. How have you viewed this step?

We have been gravely concerned by this ordinance recently issued by the government. The Tribhuvan University Employees Union had been officially and legally representing the general employees in the Tribhuvan University Assembly since 2047 BS, i.e., since the restoration of democracy and the establishment of the union. However, we are extremely saddened by the current ordinance, which seeks to curtail the representation of employees in the highest policy-making body of the university and deny the existence of the official trade union (TU Employees Union), and we completely disagree with this decision.

In a vast institution like Tribhuvan University, more than half of the workforce is employed in administrative and academic management. The TU Employees Union was the sole, common, legal, and elected body representing this more than half workforce, speaking for their joys and sorrows, and raising their voice for their rights in policy-making. The representative going there was not just a member of the assembly; they were the official voice mandated by thousands of employees.

The current ordinance has snatched away that collective representation right. We feel that it not only excludes lower-level employees from the policy-making level but also harbors ill intentions to restrict the professional rights and interests of all employees, their right to collective bargaining, and their right to organize and fight for fair wages and security.

Therefore, I want to express my regret over this decision and believe it must be rectified immediately.

The current ordinance does not mean that professors and employees will not be represented at all. It is arranged for representation of general employees or professors, not from unions. Is there any difference between going as a union and being represented individually?

There is partial truth in what you say – the ordinance does create a space for one representative from among the employees. However, its underlying intention and practical aspect are extremely flawed and dangerous. In Tribhuvan University, we have employees ranging from general office assistants to specific categories (whom we consider equivalent to secretaries). The specific category or first-class high-ranking employees are inherently part of the university's management. They are always at the policy-making level and operate the administration in close proximity to the officials. Now, this new act says 'from among the employees,' but it has not clarified whether the representative will be someone who understands the pain, suffering, and experiences of lower-level employees, or if it will be a high-ranking official who governs. Our statement is very clear – it is against democratic principles for someone who governs, imposes policies, or causes suffering to say they will provide justice. In the previous system, an elected representative chosen by employees from office assistants to section officers would go to the assembly. They could question the management without fear. However, now, the situation is arising where anyone among the 6-7 thousand employees can become a representative, or the management can select and send someone. This directly means there is a strong possibility that the representative will be someone close to the officials, someone in the management's pocket. It is not logical to make decisions, implement them, and then claim to resolve the resulting problems. For genuine representation, there must be a common legal body among the employees. Only a person chosen through democratic means by that body can speak eye-to-eye with officials about the flaws in implementation, policy weaknesses, and problems faced by workers. Therefore, the current arrangement does not represent the general lower-level employees.

The Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), which is leading the government, claims that professor, employee, and student organizations have become excessively politicized, used universities to fulfill party interests, and disrupted the academic environment. The ordinance also seems to be based on that narrative. How do you refute this?

We completely reject this narrative. Firstly, employees are the pride of the nation, public servants. Their primary duty is to perform their assigned tasks, and we are committed to that. However, while performing their duties, the state cannot forget that employees are also citizens of this country. Article 17 of the Constitution of Nepal 2072 BS grants freedom of thought and expression and freedom to form organizations, while Article 34 ensures every worker's fundamental right to fair labor practices and the right to form trade unions, participate in them, and engage in collective bargaining. We have exercised the rights granted by the constitution.

Furthermore, Nepal is a party to the International Labour Organization (ILO). Nepal has ratified ILO conventions – especially Convention No. 87 (Freedom of Association), 98 (Collective Bargaining), 144, 151, and 154. These international treaties guarantee every worker or professional the right to form an organization of their choice, participate in it, elect representatives, and be elected. Misinterpreting this as politicization is entirely wrong. Distributing party memberships by carrying a political party's bag or working for party interests is one thing, and we agree that it should be discouraged. However, organizing for purely professional rights, speaking out against injustice, demanding fair wages for labor, and raising voices for the institution's benefit is not politics; it is trade union rights.

Those who equate politics with professional rights either do not understand the law or wish to suppress workers' rights. To abolish rights protected by the constitution and international law overnight based on an ordinance is undemocratic and beyond imagination.

You linked the ILO conventions and the right to organize with international law. However, do the world-renowned and excellent universities practice having such trade unions or organizations?

The administrative structure, work style, financial resources, and work environment of universities in developing countries like ours cannot be compared on the same scale with world-renowned universities like Oxford and Harvard. We have to deal with the labor practices and circumstances of the environment in which we work. In our universities, basic fundamental rights, service security, and career development facilities are still not automatically available. When an employee joins a university, they should be promoted on time based on their qualifications and capabilities, receive a salary sufficient for livelihood, and have a safe working environment. However, in our case, even to obtain these rights, we are forced to protest or fight with the management. Where the system itself does not function, organizing people is the only alternative.

Even when comparing with universities in Europe or America, there are 'staff societies' or 'staff unions' for those working in the administrative sector. Professors also have their associations and councils there. They also advocate for their institutional interests. Therefore, we should not forget the ground reality here by blindly following the American or European model. We must determine our practices by considering our educational environment, livelihood issues, and promotion status. Regardless of the governance system or the rulers, workers' rights must be protected within the framework of universal recognition, and we want to alert the government to this fact.

While you are expressing these dissatisfactions, the ordinance has already been issued and legally implemented. What will be your next step or reaction in this situation?

The government has issued an ordinance to amend some Nepal Acts, lumping together university officials and all structures. However, we are not yet discouraged. New leadership (officials) will soon be appointed to the university. Once the new leadership arrives, we will have serious discussions with them regarding our issues, especially the matter of official representation in the Tribhuvan University Assembly. The executive council is an important body that manages the daily operations of the university. So far, there is no provision for representation from lower-level employees in the TU's executive council. In many universities worldwide, the 'Registrar' position is held by someone from the administrative sector. Our main demand is that the Registrar in TU should now be appointed from purely administrative employees. If administrative employees have ownership at the top management level (like the Registrar position) and our problems are resolved by the management itself, then perhaps we might not even need a union.

Another point is that an ordinance is not a permanent law. It needs to be passed by the parliament through a replacement act. As the law-making process progresses, there are ample opportunities for further amendments. We will continue our lobbying and pressure there as well.

The government has reduced rights by amending the law, and you are expecting something from the new leadership (Vice-Chancellor)?

Naturally. Because Tribhuvan University is an autonomous institution. It has its own acts, rules, and laws. Even if the government brings a framework act or a major law through parliament, the rules and regulations that guide and implement it are formulated by the university's own assembly. While formulating those regulations, we will have in-depth discussions with the new management on how to protect and ensure our rights. We are always in favor of the educational and administrative reform of the university. We will fully support and cooperate with the good and constructive work done by the leadership. However, if under the guise of reform, our rights are curtailed, democratic representation is denied, and a situation arises that attacks workers, we will not stand by silently. We will be compelled to unite professionally and retaliate strongly.

You can listen to the audio conversation here.